According to ESPN, he took a shoulder to the chest and went into cardiac arrest...

[au4life_rz]

McCullough once testified before a senate committee that covid cannot be spread by a person who isn't showing symptoms.

Was that the sentiment of the entire intelligentsia, medical community and all of the leading agencies such as the CDC, WHO and Dr. Fauci et. al.?

I argued with people here that, that particular opinion might be wrong, and they had a ball calling me all kinds of names and idiots. I thought we should err on the side of caution until we knew more, but at any rate, did you realize that at one point everyone was pushing that???

Did you realize that they were also saying that anyone who was fully vaccinated could NOT contract Covid, and sent MILLIONS back to mixing, mingling and conducting mass spreading events, which directly led to the Delta surge a few months later??? I argued against that too, and said I thought there was a good chance that vaccinated folks might be a hidden source of spread. Stump and his team ridiculed me to the nth degree, but later, against all odds, it was proven to be true that the fully vaccinated COULD spread Covid, and that they caused huge mass spreading events.

 

[Stumpfan]

Seriously. Does @00aubie ever post anything substantial in debates??? Most of the time, he doesn't opine, but only comes in with the most vitriolic, debased name calling and personal attacks. It really makes it hard to conduct intelligent discourse and try to learn and grow.

Is what I just said true?

Lol at you thinking you have intelligent discourse. 00 calls out bs and you post plenty of that.

 

[au4life_rz]

You’re getting abused. It’s sad at this point.

LOL! Proof positive. I told you all he wouldn't answer. He has himself wedged into a conundrum, so instead of doing what an honest man would do which is simply saying, "I was wrong", he slinks away and refuses to answer just as I predicted.

Please go back and answer the question Stump, or just admit that you were wrong.

 

[Scuff]

What about me? I don't think I insulted you, but you still haven't responded to my post that clearly demonstrated why the referenced statistic (that you insisted I debunk) was unreliable.

I don't think you did insult me (thanks).

You mentioned that it was Epoch times (source, not content) and a letter to the editor (source, not content).

If I missed a different response, let me know - lotta back and forth ITT.

 

[00aubie]

Seriously. Does @00aubie ever post anything substantial in debates??? Most of the time, he doesn't opine, but only comes in with the most vitriolic, debased name calling and personal attacks. It really makes it hard to conduct intelligent discourse and try to learn and grow.

Is what I just said true?

Did you miss the part about only debating with peers whom I respect? I'm not going to be pals with someone who I have witnessed deliberately attempt to scare and harm Auburn people for two years and continues to have such a blatant disregard for human life. Sorry.

I posted about McCullough's restraining order from Baylor and his comments equating the vaccine to "bioterrorism." You flat out ignored the former and made some quip about "context" regarding the latter before abandoning that tripe entirely.

But go ahead... let's learn and grow. Explain context to us all.

 

[stutsman23]

More importantly, are you satisfied with my response/answer? Did the links I provided satisfy your curiosity sufficiently?

No, I'm not satisfied with you trying to play games and dodge addressing the accusation you made. I don't care that you "qualified" every accusation you inevitably try to sneak in without having to defend or prove. It's childish and embarrassing. If you don't want to address something, then don't be the one who brings it into the discussion. If you do bring it in, be ready for feedback and don't get defensive and rustled when others find certain pieces of your mission statements to be more than MINOR details.

 

[au4life_rz]

Your personal Dr doesn’t know more than the cdc in real time. Viruses change. Vaccines become less effective. Etc.

So, to pick back up our original debate from the beginning of the pandemic. If "viruses change", and "vaccines become less effective", should we come out at points in time and make uber-definitive statements of "fact"??? Or, should we qualify our statements by saying it's our current best understanding, but things could change???

My entire rant was against dishonesty, and the fact that so many clearly speculative statements were positioned as iron-clad fact, just to manipulate the general public into taking the new vaccines. Again, should the leading agencies and authorities have qualified their statements to be open, honest and balanced???

 

[WDTE]

Was that the sentiment of the entire intelligentsia, medical community and all of the leading agencies such as the CDC, WHO and Dr. Fauci et. al.?

I argued with people here that, that particular opinion might be wrong, and they had a ball calling me all kinds of names and idiots. I thought we should err on the side of caution until we knew more, but at any rate, did you realize that at one point everyone was pushing that???

Did you realize that they were also saying that anyone who was fully vaccinated could NOT contract Covid, and sent MILLIONS back to mixing, mingling and conducting mass spreading events, which directly led to the Delta surge a few months later??? I argued against that too, and said I thought there was a good chance that vaccinated folks might be a hidden source of spread. Stump and his team ridiculed me to the nth degree, but later, against all odds, it was proven to be true that the fully vaccinated COULD spread Covid, and that they caused huge mass spreading events.

Yes, obviously you deserved to be made fun of for suggesting that no one should ever be given any medicine until there was 25 years worth of data on that medicine. Sometimes when people say dumb things over and over, the only way to make them realize they are dumb is to repeatedly make fun of them. Insisting that a certain years worth of data is required before anyone can be given a medical treatment doesn't even make logical sense.

 

[Stumpfan]

So, to pick back up our original debate from the beginning of the pandemic. If "viruses change", and "vaccines become less effective", should we come out at points in time and make uber-definitive statements of "fact"??? Or, should we qualify our statements by saying it's our current best understanding, but things could change???

My entire rant was against dishonesty, and the fact that so many clearly speculative statements were positioned as iron-clad fact, just to manipulate the general public into taking the new vaccines. Again, should the leading agencies and authorities have qualified their statements to be open, honest and balanced???

You take things too literally because you’re a simpleton. For example, Fauci said many times “at this time” but that was ignored.

 

[00aubie]

I don't think you did insult me (thanks).

You mentioned that it was Epoch times (source, not content) and a letter to the editor (source, not content).

If I missed a different response, let me know - lotta back and forth ITT.

I realize that you are pretending to ignore me, but would you prefer your next auto mechanic to write op-eds in Chinese cult "newspapers" about Tesla being the devil while carrying a restraining order from Jiffy Lube?

If not, why would you take medical advice from someone similarly situated?

 

[au4life_rz]

I've already explained why, when asked by someone to substantiate a claim you made, your posting of a handful of links and suggesting the answer is somewhere in them is a hilarious display of intellectual laziness. I'm more inclined to call it intellectual cowardice now that you're hiding behind the phrase, "I believe", so you don't have to actually commit to the claim you were trying to make.

No my man. I CLEARLY said "I believe" from the very beginning, and fully qualified my statement as an intellectually honest person SHOULD do, (so you're wrong yet again).

Also, the most important question is, did the information I supplied address his concerns, (over a rather insignificant and minute aspect of the overall post)? If I responded and addressed his concerns with information, your point is moot. I clearly explained why it's best to have folks verify information for themselves to their own degree of contentment. I've wasted hundreds to thousands of hours providing information to folks who sprained their fingers responding to an undotted "i" or uncrossed "T", only to have them dismiss it after they realized it debunked their point and say, "Ah, I'm not going to read that crap".

Fool me once, fool me thrice, but yet I've still stuck with your crew and tried to debate honestly hundreds of times, but you always show your dishonesty and lack of character, so excuse me for asking one of you to self-verify to whatever standard you hold.

 

[stutsman23]

No my man. I CLEARLY said "I believe" from the very beginning, and fully qualified my statement as an intellectually honest person SHOULD do, (so you're wrong yet again).

Also, the most important question is, did the information I supplied address his concerns, (over a rather insignificant and minute aspect of the overall post)? If I responded and addressed his concerns with information, your point is moot. I clearly explained why it's best to have folks verify information for themselves to their own degree of contentment. I've wasted hundreds to thousands of hours providing information to folks who sprained their fingers responding to an undotted "i" or uncrossed "T", only to have them dismiss it after they realized it debunked their point and say, "Ah, I'm not going to read that crap".

Fool me once, fool me thrice, but yet I've still stuck with your crew and tried to debate honestly hundreds of times, but you always show your dishonesty and lack of character, so excuse me for asking one of you to self-verify to whatever standard you hold.

This is why you bother people. If it's "insignificant and minute" then don't bring it into the conversation. If you bring it into the conversation, it may prove to not be "insignificant and minute" to the reader. You can't choose what others deem to be important. And intentionally qualifying all your gross accusations doesn't make a difference. It's a cute way to try to avoid addressing your actual opinions, but it simply doesn't work. If you don't want to discuss something, don't bring it up, pretty simple.

 

[au4life_rz]

To be fair, you are impossible to discuss this with. You'll post a whole page worth of text that says nothing at all, just a big ole word salad that you expect people to read when in reality no one on here has any reason to care about your medical advice or where you get your medical advice. If you think the vaccine is bad, great, don't get it. If you think people should take medical advice from you then you're 100% wrong.

Your post and characterizations aren't true, but anyways...

1. Have I ever said that that others should take medical advice from me?

2. Have I EVER said that the vaccine was definitely bad?

Or, have I simply railed for transparency, openness, honesty, and no censorship, dishonesty, deceit and manipulation?

 

[au4life_rz]

You heard about a man's life hanging in the balance and immediately rushed to the internet to spew the conspiracy bullshit that consumes you. You are so desperate to prove that you haven't wasted two years of your life disseminating lunacy, that you couldn't even be bothered to view what took place with your own eyes. You needed this. This was your big break.

Respectful... lol.

I turned the T.V. back on and watched the broadcast for a nice little while, and they were not showing the replay, but everyone said it was a pretty routine play. It became clear they weren't going to show it, so yes, I did rush out to the Bunker to discuss it with my e-Fam. So....., yet again you reached and were dead wrong.

It was VERY real, and near and dear to me. You ever been around when someone collapsed, or died on a field of play, or doing conditioning? My emotions and concerns were very real, but you're trying to turn it into a game. Did I, or did I not refrain from posting in the silly, selfish dust-up? The thread is still over there for all to see.

 

[Little_General]

I don't think you did insult me (thanks).

You mentioned that it was Epoch times (source, not content) and a letter to the editor (source, not content).

Let's clarify this. What happened was someone made a claim that 279 athletes had suffered cardiac arrest after receiving the vaccine. The source of that claim, Epoch Times, inaccurately attributed that claim to a "peer-reviewed research" article that was neither a research article, nor was it peer-reviewed.

So no, that's not just about the source. That's about the content. Which is inaccurate.

 

[au4life_rz]

Did you miss the part about only debating with peers whom I respect? I'm not going to be pals with someone who I have witnessed deliberately attempt to scare and harm Auburn people for two years and continues to have such a blatant disregard for human life. Sorry.

I posted about McCullough's restraining order from Baylor and his comments equating the vaccine to "bioterrorism." You flat out ignored the former and made some quip about "context" regarding the latter before abandoning that tripe entirely.

But go ahead... let's learn and grow. Explain context to us all.

There was nothing to say about McCollough's situation as he and most every other well respected expert who went against the Covid narrative was fired, canceled and had their entire lifetimes of work trashed. There were MANY wrongs done, and an honest, fair and balanced person would indeed consider that his restraining order was placed during a time of unprecedented attacks on folks.....all due to the awful Covid agenda.

It was complete censorship, and I have to believe that most everyone recognized what was happening when post-doctoral research level experts were instantly kicked off twitter, facebook, and even had their LinkedIn profiles deleted, so they wouldn't have any means of reaching the masses with their well qualified, and in some cases, solid opinion and concerns. What was done was wrong.

 

[WDTE]

Your post and characterizations aren't true, but anyways...

1. Have I ever said that that others should take medical advice from me?

2. Have I EVER said that the vaccine was definitely bad?

Or, have I simply railed for transparency, openness, honesty, and no censorship, dishonesty, deceit and manipulation?

Has your doctor manipulated you? Mine hasn't. If you listen to doctors on twitter or fox news or msnbc then you likely have been manipulated, in which case I would direct you back to my point where I said to get your medical advice from your doctor, not the internet or tv. And certainly not a football message board.

 

[au4life_rz]

No, I'm not satisfied with you trying to play games and dodge addressing the accusation you made. I don't care that you "qualified" every accusation you inevitably try to sneak in without having to defend or prove. It's childish and embarrassing. If you don't want to address something, then don't be the one who brings it into the discussion. If you do bring it in, be ready for feedback and don't get defensive and rustled when others find certain pieces of your mission statements to be more than MINOR details.

I didn't try to "sneak in" anything. I spoke it plainly, and qualified it as an honest, balanced and fair person should. I then supplied you NUMEROUS links to establish some context, objectivity and insight into the climate I was describing, yet you seemed to dismiss them altogether, haven't commented, and only resorted to other childish attacks.

I definitely answered your question and supplied you with more than enough links to support what I said. I'm not interested in little "you didn't dot an I" games. I think we all know you, and why you get your undies all up in a twitter.

 

[au4life_rz]

Yes, obviously you deserved to be made fun of for suggesting that no one should ever be given any medicine until there was 25 years worth of data on that medicine. Sometimes when people say dumb things over and over, the only way to make them realize they are dumb is to repeatedly make fun of them. Insisting that a certain years worth of data is required before anyone can be given a medical treatment doesn't even make logical sense.

First, making fun and attempting to ridicule is not the mark of an intellectually honest, mature man. Secondly, I NEVER advocated such a foolish position. You are lying.

 

[4th_and_18]

My guess would be in pig hearts or the like. I feel certain this was not figured out in humans.

I was thinking it might have been the result of combined autopsy reports IF the heart stays in the same position which I’m not sure if it does. Any MDs here feel free to opine

 

[stutsman23]

I didn't try to "sneak in" anything. I spoke it plainly, and qualified it as an honest, balanced and fair person should. I then supplied you NUMEROUS links to establish some context, objectivity and insight into the climate I was describing, yet you seemed to dismiss them altogether, haven't commented, and only resorted to other childish attacks.

I definitely answered your question and supplied you with more than enough links to support what I said. I'm not interested in little "you didn't dot an I" games. I think we all know you, and why you get your undies all up in a twitter.

Lolz, you always have the same response when called out for making DIRECT STATEMENTS. It's not about dotting i's, it's about the actual statements you make in your posts. You made a claim. I asked you about it. You take offense to that and start acting like it's some minor detail that shouldn't matter. I know you go to great lengths to qualify statements and make sure you word things the exact way you want, so it's quite clear that the "minor details" are major enough for you to include... why are they suddenly "minor" when you're asked to defend them? It's almost like all that effort to qualify accusations and surround them with a bunch of gibberish to claim they're merely "minor" is simply an effort to set you up for this cop-out response you always defer to when called out.

 

[au4life_rz]

You take things too literally because you’re a simpleton. For example, Fauci said many times “at this time” but that was ignored.

So, you're just like, NOT going to answer? I'm talking about YOU, and the specific LONG running debate we had over the course of two plus years. It started with me simply offering my humble opinion that "Stump, you should probably qualify your statements and be more balanced" so as not to give the impression that the current thought was iron-clad fact.

I continually pointed out that viruses change, and that we knew very little at this time, so Fauci, the CDC and others should NOT be making such definitive statements. Most importantly, that you shouldn't pop out here and do so with every Johnny-come-lately study that supported your position. Yet, you laughed, ridiculed and continued to do so.

Then, after a long, lengthy period and no admission that you were wrong, you finally started saying.. "but, but, viruses mutate and change", but only after the dishonest facade that was the Covid agenda begin to crumble under the truth as it made its way out to the public against all odds.

 

[00aubie]

I turned the T.V. back on and watched the broadcast for a nice little while, and they were not showing the replay, but everyone said it was a pretty routine play. It became clear they weren't going to show it, so yes, I did rush out to the Bunker to discuss it with my e-Fam. So....., yet again you reached and were dead wrong.

It was VERY real, and near and dear to me. You ever been around when someone collapsed, or died on a field of play, or doing conditioning? My emotions and concerns were very real, but you're trying to turn it into a game. Did I, or did I not refrain from posting in the silly, selfish dust-up? The thread is still over there for all to see.

Yes, we can all see how in response to a potential tragic event, you immediately elected to jump in and crank up the vaccine conspiracy machine.

Maybe give it an hour next time... you might get more bites.

There was nothing to say about McCollough's situation as he and most every other well respected expert who went against the Covid narrative was fired, canceled and had their entire lifetimes of work trashed. There were MANY wrongs done, and an honest, fair and balanced person would indeed consider that his restraining order was placed during a time of unprecedented attacks on folks.....all due to the awful Covid agenda.

It was complete censorship, and I have to believe that most everyone recognized what was happening when post-doctoral research level experts were instantly kicked off twitter, facebook, and even had their LinkedIn profiles deleted, so they wouldn't have any means of reaching the masses with their well qualified, and in some cases, solid opinion and concerns. What was done was wrong.

Interesting. Perhaps Baylor was never a credible medical institution to begin with then.

But they've all lost credibility after covid anyway, right?

 

[WDTE]

First, making fun and attempting to ridicule is not the mark of an intellectually honest, mature man. Secondly, I NEVER advocated such a foolish position. You are lying.

No, the ability to recognize a fool and tell him he's foolish is absolutely something a mature man can do. A fool however is typically incapable of accepting such criticism.

Secondly, there are pages upon pages of you talking about the amount of data needed for vaccine studies. "Decades of data" means at least 20 years, just in case you weren't aware.

 

[au4life_rz]

This is why you bother people. If it's "insignificant and minute" then don't bring it into the conversation. If you bring it into the conversation, it may prove to not be "insignificant and minute" to the reader. You can't choose what others deem to be important. And intentionally qualifying all your gross accusations doesn't make a difference. It's a cute way to try to avoid addressing your actual opinions, but it simply doesn't work. If you don't want to discuss something, don't bring it up, pretty simple.

It was just one of many items that I used to establish the general context and position that great harm, censorship, cancellations, and attacks were made on anyone who didn't align 100% with the established Covid narrative. I was trying to establish the climate using multiple supporting examples.

Separately, they may be considered small, but together, they establish the caustic, unfair and Orwellian climate that existed. In those cases, most folks wouldn't focus in on a small detail if the main point was to establish the FACT that a forest existed. Someone essentially saying, "Hey, but what about that bush I saw in your picture. Yeah, 1000 of those were trees, but what about the bush. WHAT ABOUT THE BUSH!!!!!".

Most folks would understand that a single bush among a forest full of trees, does NOT invalidate the fact that it's still a forest. Folks fixate on minutia like that when they have nothing substantial to counter with, and are desperately looking for anything to divert the debate off into the ditch. "Aha, I got you know. You didn't dot that "i"", (without realizing that does NOT discount truth established in the entire paper). It's sad man, and you can certainly be a petty hater. You get pissed whenever I start rough-housing back with those who make constant petty attacks on me, and that's sad.

 

[au4life_rz]

This is why you bother people. If it's "insignificant and minute" then don't bring it into the conversation. If you bring it into the conversation, it may prove to not be "insignificant and minute" to the reader. You can't choose what others deem to be important. And intentionally qualifying all your gross accusations doesn't make a difference. It's a cute way to try to avoid addressing your actual opinions, but it simply doesn't work. If you don't want to discuss something, don't bring it up, pretty simple.

Also, you do NOT get to speak for all people. Now, THAT is a cheap trick used to try and act as if the majority agrees with you.

Just stick to telling the truth about why I bother YOU.

 

[au4life_rz]

Has your doctor manipulated you? Mine hasn't. If you listen to doctors on twitter or fox news or msnbc then you likely have been manipulated, in which case I would direct you back to my point where I said to get your medical advice from your doctor, not the internet or tv. And certainly not a football message board.

You didn't answer my simple questions. Please don't try to deflect, and go back and answer the questions...please.

 

[au4life_rz]

Lolz, you always have the same response when called out for making DIRECT STATEMENTS. It's not about dotting i's, it's about the actual statements you make in your posts. You made a claim. I asked you about it. You take offense to that and start acting like it's some minor detail that shouldn't matter. I know you go to great lengths to qualify statements and make sure you word things the exact way you want, so it's quite clear that the "minor details" are major enough for you to include... why are they suddenly "minor" when you're asked to defend them? It's almost like all that effort to qualify accusations and surround them with a bunch of gibberish to claim they're merely "minor" is simply an effort to set you up for this cop-out response you always defer to when called out.

No, I did not take offense I all. I simply answered your questions HERE:. Yet again, your little crew is caught lying.

 

[Little_General]

Also, you do NOT get to speak for all people. Now, THAT is a cheap trick used to try and act as if the majority agrees with you.

This you?

Your simpleton-soup won't work on us my man.

 

[Stumpfan]

So, you're just like, NOT going to answer? I'm talking about YOU, and the specific LONG running debate we had over the course of two plus years. It started with me simply offering my humble opinion that "Stump, you should probably qualify your statements and be more balanced" so as not to give the impression that the current thought was iron-clad fact.

I continually pointed out that viruses change, and that we knew very little at this time, so Fauci, the CDC and others should NOT be making such definitive statements. Most importantly, that you shouldn't pop out here and do so with every Johnny-come-lately study that supported your position. Yet, you laughed, ridiculed and continued to do so.

Then, after a long, lengthy period and no admission that you were wrong, you finally started saying.. "but, but, viruses mutate and change", but only after the dishonest facade that was the Covid agenda begin to crumble under the truth as it made its way out to the public against all odds.

No, you put up every vaccine conspiracy known to man.

 

[au4life_rz]

No, the ability to recognize a fool and tell him he's foolish is absolutely something a mature man can do. A fool however is typically incapable of accepting such criticism.

Secondly, there are pages upon pages of you talking about the amount of data needed for vaccine studies. "Decades of data" means at least 20 years, just in case you weren't aware.

Okay, then go and link just 3 or 4 of them. If there are pages as you said, it should be easy. Now in pretty much EVERY case, whenever I issue this challenge to expose inveterate liars, there is no response. They just skip it and start with another post.

It'll be interesting to see if you provide the links to back up your accusations, or if you're proven to be a liar.

 

[stutsman23]

It was just one of many items that I used to establish the general context and position that great harm, censorship, cancellations, and attacks were made on anyone who didn't align 100% with the established Covid narrative. I was trying to establish the climate using multiple supporting examples.

Separately, they may be considered small, but together, they establish the caustic, unfair and Orwellian climate that existed. In those cases, most folks wouldn't focus in on a small detail if the main point was to establish the FACT that a forest existed. Someone essentially saying, "Hey, but what about that bush I saw in your picture. Yeah, 1000 of those were trees, but what about the bush. WHAT ABOUT THE BUSH!!!!!".

Most folks would understand that a single bush among a forest full of trees, does NOT invalidate the fact that it's still a forest. Folks fixate on minutia like that when they have nothing substantial to counter with, and are desperately looking for anything to divert the debate off into the ditch. "Aha, I got you know. You didn't dot that "i"", (without realizing that does NOT discount truth established in the entire paper). It's sad man, and you can certainly be a petty hater. You get pissed whenever I start rough-housing back with those who make constant petty attacks on me, and that's sad.

No, you made a direct statement. If it wasn’t meaningful, you wouldn’t have included it. If you include it, you open the door for discussion and challenges on that specific issue. You can’t write as many pages as you like, but it doesn’t change a thing. Either man up and own your words, or don’t include things your gonna avoid when challenged. It’s quite simple.

Again with the cop outs. You like that other guys posts every time he condemns people for calling names, then sling em yourself. Just because you’re not a fan of owning your statements, it doesn’t make me a “petty hater”. It makes me an inquisitive person wanting the accuser to detail his supporting evidence for such claims. I like you, I’m not a hater at all, I just think you aren’t nearly as mature as you consider yourself to be when engaging in honest debate.

 

[WDTE]

You didn't answer my simple questions. Please don't try to deflect, and go back and answer the questions...please.

I have no interest in answering your questions because I care as much about your opinion on the vaccines as I do about the squirrels outside my window. You continue to post huge posts that say nothing and claim you want to open everyone's eyes and prevent censorship and all that nonsense. As far as I'm aware no one has censored you. And no one cares what you have to say. You just keep saying nothing at all and act surprised when people don't take you seriously. But then you claim you don't want anyone taking your medical advice. Great! Stop talking about medical advice if you don't think people should listen to you. I think you'd live a lot happier life if you'd stop talking about vaccines for a bit.

 

[stutsman23]

Also, you do NOT get to speak for all people. Now, THAT is a cheap trick used to try and act as if the majority agrees with you.

Just stick to telling the truth about why I bother YOU.

Case in point. I offer a bit of honest, constructive criticism and you simply can’t handle it. It’s odd man.

 

[stutsman23]

No, I did not take offense I all. I simply answered your questions HERE:. Yet again, your little crew is caught lying.

I have no crew. Yet again, another easy cop out to make yourself feel better. I’m discussing something with you.

 

[WDTE]

Okay, then go and link just 3 or 4 of them. If there are pages as you said, it should be easy. Now in pretty much EVERY case, whenever I issue this challenge to expose inveterate liars, there is no response. They just skip it and start with another post.

It'll be interesting to see if you provide the links to back up your accusations, or if you're proven to be a liar.

I do not care. I already told you how to do the search. If you don't want to search the term I already told you, that's on you. Your opinions do not matter. Please stop pretending they do.

 

[au4life_rz]

No, you put up every vaccine conspiracy known to man.

No, I did not. And everyone, please take note. Stump attacked ME, and I asked him a simple question in my response that shut him down COMPLETELY, so he's refusing to answer. Time proved you to be DEAD WRONG in your approach, just as it was predicted might happen.

You were clearly thwarted on that one Stump, and that's why I predicted that you would NOT answer. Thanks for confirming that you won't answer. You were also clearly proven to be wrong in stating every latest spun study as if it were definite fact. Now, by your own mouth you are admitting that "viruses change", which was all I was telling you in the first place.

 

[Stumpfan]

No, I did not. And everyone, please take note. Stump attacked ME, and I asked him a simple question in my response that shut him down COMPLETELY, so he's refusing to answer. Time proved you to be DEAD WRONG in your approach, just as it was predicted might happen.

You were clearly thwarted on that one Stump, and that's why I predicted that you would NOT answer. Thanks for confirming that you won't answer. You were also clearly proven to be wrong in stating every latest spun study as if it were definite fact. Now, by your own mouth you are admitting that "viruses change", which was all I was telling you in the first place.

Everybody take note? Do you think you have an audience? Lol. You’re a nut job.

 

[au4life_rz]

I have no interest in answering your questions because I care as much about your opinion on the vaccines as I do about the squirrels outside my window. You continue to post huge posts that say nothing and claim you want to open everyone's eyes and prevent censorship and all that nonsense. As far as I'm aware no one has censored you. And no one cares what you have to say. You just keep saying nothing at all and act surprised when people don't take you seriously. But then you claim you don't want anyone taking your medical advice. Great! Stop talking about medical advice if you don't think people should listen to you. I think you'd live a lot happier life if you'd stop talking about vaccines for a bit.

Thanks for admitting that. Everyone can now see and agree that there can be no debate, when folks refuse to answer.

You didn't answer the simple questions because they prove you to be wrong. Don't jump in half-cocked and try to debate a point, then duck out when you are debunked. This should wrap up our little segment, and I please don't respond to me again if you don't intend to engage, (especially if your point is clearly debunked).

 

[DM8]

It was retracted in May of 2022, so no, but really good attempt here. Here's some more information on why it was retracted:

The focus of the paper is on a critically important public health issue. As such, it is essential that the presentation be accurate and balanced. Additional external review of this paper following publication concluded that it demonstrates inappropriate bias in multiple ways.​

​

The use of key terminology, specifically the key terms “inoculation” and “vaccination” diverges from common use and are incorrect, indicating clear evidence of bias.​

​

Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.​

​

Want to stop bullshitting now? Of course not.


This is, quite literally, the definition of confirmation bias.

Holy shit. How embarrassing for @au4life_rz. His screeds are always filled with nonsense so this is no surprise. Props to @Little_General for have the perseverance to keep exposing his trash takes though as opposed to just pointing and laughing as most do that have gotten tired of engaging with him.