First a trickle....Now a flood

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

So… you still can’t show where it is? 

You're looking right at it .

Every time you lie like that, you look a little bit worse. 

Go wipe your nose boy. 

[User]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You're looking right at it .

Every time you lie like that, you look a little bit worse. 

Go wipe your nose boy. 

Um, nope. 

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Um, nope. 

You're still at this?

He answered your questions.

I answered your questions.

The government gave a half-a$$ed warning.  In reality, it wasn't even a warning.  It was an assurance.  They assured people that the risks were inconsequential across multiple age groups, across individual health.

Even scientifically/medically that is false.

No medical intervention is "one size fits all."

STFU already.

 

[Goddess]

 

Dr. Aseem Malhotra was an esteemed British cardiologist who frequently appeared on television and fully supported the covid injections......until his father, who had no cardiac issues before the jabs, died shortly after getting them, from heart attack.

It prompted him to investigate them more deeply and he was shocked by what he discovered.

When he began speaking out, he was vilified, censored and blacklisted.

Dr. Malhotra, at yesterday's US Senate hearings on outcomes from the covid injections (particularly cardiac and cancer issues):

‘Looking at the totality of up-to-date evidence, and what you’ve heard from eminent witnesses today, in my view, millions of Americans and millions more across the world may be in clear and present danger of suffering premature cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Without allowing all scientists to debate this openly without fear of censure, we will not be able to identify who is most at risk and how these risks can be mitigated.

When it comes to making money, multi-national corporations have been diagnosed by Forensic psychologist Robert Hare and Law Professor Joel Bakan as legal entities that fulfil the criteria for Psychopathy. Characteristics include:

• callous unconcern for the safety of others,
• incapacity to experience guilt,
• repeated lying, and conning others for profit.

The evidence presented here today exposes the corporate tyranny underlying public health practice. This profitability over people rooted in the neo-liberal economic model has led to trust being at an all-time low in the medical profession.

A full public apology from government bodies and medical leadership to the vaccine injured and bereaved is an essential first step in restoring that trust.

Tyranny emerges when people are afraid to say what they think. When you have something to say, silence is a lie. When everyone lies all the time, the tyranny is complete.

To save the health of the American people and to save democracy, it is our responsibility to expose, resist and dismantle the era of corporate tyranny we currently find ourselves in’

Edited 3 hours ago by Goddess

[Goddess]

One again - the Americans taking out our trash.

 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You're still at this?

He answered your questions.

I answered your questions.

The government gave a half-a$$ed warning.  In reality, it wasn't even a warning.  It was an assurance.  They assured people that the risks were inconsequential across multiple age groups, across individual health.

Even scientifically/medically that is false.

No medical intervention is "one size fits all."

STFU already.

 

No, he didn’t answer my questions. If you are so sure and wanting to help him, just point out where he did! 
 

I have had A LOT of questions you have not answered. My goodness, I’d have to go back a ways to sum them all up.

I mean, just most recently, you keep ignoring my questions about what vaccines you think are cool. 
 

You keep claiming you are not anti-vax, that you are vaccinated, and yet you can’t even name the vaccines you support. 
 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

Um, nope. 

um yep  and everyone sees it kid. 

Like i said, Deeply embarrassing behavior on your part.  you need to think about how you let your emotional attachment to you position lead you to make horrible arguments and WORSE eventually start to behave like a child demanding what you've already been given more than once 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, he didn’t answer my questions.
 

Kid EVERYONE can see i answered your questions. Mutiple times. 

The gov't did not substantially warn the public about the risks of the untested vaccine relying on new never before deployed technology, they SHOULD have been honest and they SHOULD have stood behind anyone who had a negative reaction after taking it at their insistence.

Everything's been answered multiple times and you're just crying like a spoiled brat 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

um yep  and everyone sees it kid. 

Like i said, Deeply embarrassing behavior on your part.  you need to think about how you let your emotional attachment to you position lead you to make horrible arguments and WORSE eventually start to behave like a child demanding what you've already been given more than once 

Everyone sees it and yet no one can show it…

Again, for as much time as you spend pushing this nonsense, if you actually answered my questions, you could have just shown me where or copied the answers for me again.

That is, if you ever did… 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Kid EVERYONE can see i answered your questions. Mutiple times. 

The gov't did not substantially warn the public about the risks of the untested vaccine relying on new never before deployed technology, they SHOULD have been honest and they SHOULD have stood behind anyone who had a negative reaction after taking it at their insistence.

Everything's been answered multiple times and you're just crying like a spoiled brat 

Again… (see how easy this is for me to go copy and paste?!)

• If you want to go back to your original assertion, about the only thing of substance here, that Canada did not adequately warn of the risks, that is your job to prove:
  
   
• What risk? <-Define the risk
• When did officials know? <- You say they should have done more, so... what did they know before and what evidence do you have?
• What did they say publicly at the time? <- What was it they said you think is proof of them downplaying the risk (and remember, you must define that risk)
• What should they have said instead?