John Stockton Claims He Had Proof of 1000 Athletes Dying of Vaccine

[One Brow]

LMFAO that makes absolutely no sense and is your go-to typical non-answer.

What's the part that you didn't understand? Was "heavily editied" confusing (you can tell by the numerous jump cuts)? Do you not understand the concept of "out of chronological order" (you can tell by the back-and-forth camera angles and the varied levels of inebriation)?

Now answer the question. What was taken out of context specifically?

Every part of the interview. We don't see the conversation that led up to it, we don't see the conversation in chronological order, etc. We see snippets from a conversation that last long enough for the guy to get inebriated. You can see a jump cut with a flash of light at 0:08, another at 0:23, 0:33, 1:42, etc. Did you miss that somehow? Do you not understand what "out of context" means?

Don't be like your friends

I have long, detailed arguments with every poster in this thread (except for Red, IIRC). I have no online friends.

Back up your claim.

Done.

... then move the goalposts like you just did.

That's quite an accusation of dishonesty. What goalpost did I move?

You said I(that's me) "misrepresented what he said". That's pretty damn close to saying I took things out of context lol.

You did misrepresent what he said, but by removing the hypotheticals and conditionals from what he was saying, and by pretending he was admitting something instead of speculating. You did not take him out of context; instead you used a video of other people taking him out of context.

What did I misrepresent(take out of context same difference)?

Taking a person out of context is but one form of misrepresentation. Your form of misrepresentation was to take hypotheticals, potentials, and conditionals, and treat them as actuals and admissions.

 

[One Brow]

Pfizer Responds to Research Claims | Pfizer

New York, N.Y., January 27, 2023 – Allegations have recently been made related to gain of function and directed evolution research at Pfizer and the company would like to set the record straight.

www.pfizer.com

lol interesting that the language has changed when listing the potential side effects. It's no longer "incredibly rare" but "very low"

I assume you mean the myocarditis risk in young adults. Is the risk high enough that these people should not be vaccinated? I don't recall you ever producing numbers to support this stance.

Also all of a sudden it's important to consult with your doctor with everything related to vaccination.

I have heard that for every vaccination, all my life. I find it difficult to believe that Pfizer did not always advise consulting with a doctor in some form or another. Do you have an archived page or picture where they did not advise this? In fact, the rest of your post was also commenting on what I've seen dozens of times for covid and other vaccines.

According to this recent paper analysis shows an estimate of serious adverse reactions at approximately 1 in 800 for mRNA vaccines.

The reactions are 50% higher for Moderna than Pfizer, which seems to be why Pfizer is preferred in the European Union.

 

[SteakNEggs]

What's the part that you didn't understand? Was "heavily editied" confusing (you can tell by the numerous jump cuts)? Do you not understand the concept of "out of chronological order" (you can tell by the back-and-forth camera angles and the varied levels of inebriation)?


Every part of the interview. We don't see the conversation that led up to it, we don't see the conversation in chronological order, etc. We see snippets from a conversation that last long enough for the guy to get inebriated. You can see a jump cut with a flash of light at 0:08, another at 0:23, 0:33, 1:42, etc. Did you miss that somehow? Do you not understand what "out of context" means?


I have long, detailed arguments with every poster in this thread (except for Red, IIRC). I have no online friends.


Done.


That's quite an accusation of dishonesty. What goalpost did I move?


You did misrepresent what he said, but by removing the hypotheticals and conditionals from what he was saying, and by pretending he was admitting something instead of speculating. You did not take him out of context; instead you used a video of other people taking him out of context.


Taking a person out of context is but one form of misrepresentation. Your form of misrepresentation was to take hypotheticals, potentials, and conditionals, and treat them as actuals and admissions.

I knew you wouldn't provide what context you mean you just went off on stupid tangents. Now what part specifically did I take out of context? There's multiple things he said on camera. What parts exactly? You're showing signs of pathological lying here bro. What part did I misrepresent exactly? I've never denied that the video was in order. How is that relevant to what was said? He still said what he said and at what point he said it is irrelevant. His words matter not when. I ask what parts you mean we're manipulated you can't even give an honest answer.

You do know what specific means right? That means to pin point the actual conversation that your accusing me of misrepresenting not made up bs. Show me where and what parts I took out of context instead of writing a book about you suppose I did. What post exactly and what was misconstrued?

I mean, how are supposed to address this without you even saying what part we need to address? You're being intentionally vague and you know it.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Here I'll even do the work. Is this edited you suppose? What parts?

JTW : Well, that is not what we say to the public. No.
JTW : Don’t tell anyone this by the way, you have to promise you won’t tell anyone.
JTW : We’re exploring like – you know how the virus keeps mutating?
JTW : Well one of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it ourselves so we could- we could create preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating ****ing viruses.

PV : It [mutating COVID] sounds like Gain-of-Function to me.

JTW : I don’t know, it’s a little bit different. I think it’s different. It’s like, this, it’s definitely not Gain-of-Function.

PV : It sounds like it is, I mean, it’s okay.

JTW : No no no, but directed evolution is very different.
JTW : Well you’re not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with the viruses.
JTW : They’d rather we not, but we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can make them more potent.

 

[LogGrad98]

This feels like a conversation from the Twilight zone.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Is this part edited? Notice how he uses the word mutate not engineered?

“You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere, which, I suspect, is how the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bulls–t.”

This?
“I think they’re also trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you don’t want to announce that you’re discovering future mutations […] Don’t tell anybody.”

 

[gandalfe]

This feels like a conversation from the Twilight zone.

There's... COVID on the wing!

 

[One Brow]

I knew you wouldn't provide what context you mean

How can I provide the context when I was not a part of the conversation?

Now what part specifically did I take out of context?

Again, none. Your misrepresentation was not taking stuff out of context.

There's multiple things he said on camera. What parts exactly?

All of the video is out of context. The whole thing.

You're showing signs of pathological lying here bro. What part did I misrepresent exactly?

Asked and answered.

How is that relevant to what was said?

That's a good question. Think on that.

He still said what he said and at what point he said it is irrelevant. His words matter not when.

The meanings of sentences change depending upon context.

I ask what parts you mean we're manipulated you can't even give an honest answer.

You've already acknowledged the manipulations I've claimed.

That means to pin point the actual conversation that your accusing me of misrepresenting not made up bs.

You have misrepresented the statements in the video.

Show me where and what parts I took out of context

I did not claim you took things out of context.

What post exactly and what was misconstrued?

Sooooo many choices.

Post #414

Personally I thought it was basic knowledge that the vaccine has had adverse effects on womans reproduction.

Post #423

Uhh they could disapprove the entire thing by saying [Walker was not an employee].

Post #424

you guys have to go to any lengths to protect Pfizer so you do not get exposed

Post #445

your claim that Walker is a fake photoshopped, CGI man

Post #453

I've brought evidence that it has in fact messed with woman's reproductive cyckes

I've brought evidence that they are actually mutating the virus(in their own words "engineering",

I've provided a guy that literally works for Pfizer saying some pretty damning stuff.

admitting gain if function

I could go on quoting your misrepresentations. It's a long list.

I mean, how are supposed to address this without you even saying what part we need to address? You're being intentionally vague and you know it.

I've been pretty clear that there is nothing incriminating in that video.

Here I'll even do the work. Is this edited you suppose? What parts?

Literally none of this is in the video from post #439. I'm sure you another video in mind, and just got confused. I don't know if that other video is edited or not, I have not seen it. If it is from Project Veritas, it probably is, but I don't know with certainty.

JTW : Well, that is not what we say to the public. No.

I don't know what is being said or not said here.

JTW : Don’t tell anyone this by the way, you have to promise you won’t tell anyone.

People who are drunk often say things they wouldn't say when they are sober.

JTW : We’re exploring like – you know how the virus keeps mutating?

I would hope so.

JTW : Well one of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it ourselves so we could- we could create preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating ****ing viruses.

Again, I hope this research is happening, and Pfizer has confirmed it happening with safeguards (such as isolating the spike protein so it's not part of an entire virus).

PV : It [mutating COVID] sounds like Gain-of-Function to me.

JTW : I don’t know, it’s a little bit different. I think it’s different. It’s like, this, it’s definitely not Gain-of-Function.

Not gain-of-function.

PV : It sounds like it is, I mean, it’s okay.

JTW : No no no, but directed evolution is very different.

They are different, but why would the interviewee bring up directed evolution if the reporter didn't ask about it? Pfizer wouldn't bother with directed evolution, it's too slow and unpredictable.

JTW : Well you’re not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with the viruses.

True.

JTW : They’d rather we not, but we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can make them more potent.

Right, they separate the structures and then do the mutations. Since it's not an intact virus, it's not gain-of-function.

Whatever this other video is, the quote your present offer nothing to be concerned about.

 

[One Brow]

Is this part edited? Notice how he uses the word mutate not engineered?

Inebriated people often speak with a lack of precision, in my experience.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Inebriated people often speak with a lack of precision, in my experience.

Can't even answer a basic question. It was a simple yes or no.

How can I provide the context when I was not a part of the conversation?


Again, none. Your misrepresentation was not taking stuff out of context.


All of the video is out of context. The whole thing.


Asked and answered.


That's a good question. Think on that.


The meanings of sentences change depending upon context.


You've already acknowledged the manipulations I've claimed.


You have misrepresented the statements in the video.


I did not claim you took things out of context.


Sooooo many choices.

Post #414

Post #423

Post #424

Post #445

Post #453






I could go on quoting your misrepresentations. It's a long list.



I've been pretty clear that there is nothing incriminating in that video.


Literally none of this is in the video from post #439. I'm sure you another video in mind, and just got confused. I don't know if that other video is edited or not, I have not seen it. If it is from Project Veritas, it probably is, but I don't know with certainty.


I don't know what is being said or not said here.


People who are drunk often say things they wouldn't say when they are sober.


I would hope so.


Again, I hope this research is happening, and Pfizer has confirmed it happening with safeguards (such as isolating the spike protein so it's not part of an entire virus).


Not gain-of-function.


They are different, but why would the interviewee bring up directed evolution if the reporter didn't ask about it? Pfizer wouldn't bother with directed evolution, it's too slow and unpredictable.


True.


Right, they separate the structures and then do the mutations. Since it's not an intact virus, it's not gain-of-function.

Whatever this other video is, the quote your present offer nothing to be concerned about.

My god, you will not answer the question. Me saying "you guys have to go to any lengths to protect Pfizer so you do not get exposed" is not taking the video out of context. It has nothing to do with the video. I mean if you want to say me being a facetious and blatantly sarcastic as me "taking things out of context" then cool... fine... whatever but I'm talking strictly about the video being out of context not my facetious/passive aggresive quips about you guys and your Pfizer Gods(sarcasm). Funny how you even blatantly left out the part where I said I was being facetious in one of those post.

I am talking about the video and what was said in the video when I'm talking about context. I mean claiming that Walker was CGI? It's me mocking the absurdity that this was fabricated lol. Insert that over the head gif.

Funny thing is, you actually responded to his unedited quote proving my point that it wasn't tampered with and that what Walker said, is literally what he said. Just something to think about as I'm done with it. You are very good at manipulating an argument that isn't even there. I am talking about the actual video and it's context, you are bringing up obvious sarcasm and slight trolling. I now understand that we are not on the same page as we are talking about two different things. You're talking about my sarcasm and my personal thoughts, I'm talking about a vider using video evidence. Video evidence of a guy saying exactly what HE said.

I'm taking fish's advice and giving it a rest though so respond if you want but I'm not going to read it. This has ran it's course. Peace

 

[Gameface]

SteakNEggs has a very poor understanding of the English language, it has become clear.

I apologize that I did not recognize that English was not your first language @SteakNEggs. It is a difficult language and is hard to master as a second language. I hope you forgive my rudeness in expecting you to understand the nuances inherent in the language for which you are not a native speaker.

 

[SteakNEggs]

SteakNEggs has a very poor understanding of the English language, it has become clear.

I apologize that I did not recognize that English was not your first language @SteakNEggs. It is a difficult language and is hard to master as a second language. I hope you forgive my rudeness in expecting you to understand the nuances inherent in the language for which you are not a native speaker.

Then you get this little triggered soul lol.

Lol little wannabe bully. Can't even conversate.

 

[gandalfe]

SteakNEggs has a very poor understanding of the English language, it has become clear.

I apologize that I did not recognize that English was not your first language @SteakNEggs. It is a difficult language and is hard to master as a second language. I hope you forgive my rudeness in expecting you to understand the nuances inherent in the language for which you are not a native speaker.

Are you sure it's not his(?) first language? Is it possible they're just not very good at it in general?

 

[SteakNEggs]

Are you sure it's not his(?) first language? Is it possible they're just not very good at it in general?

Who's "they're" exactly?

 

[gandalfe]

Who's "they're" exactly?

"They" is the standard pronoun to use when you're uncertain of someone's gender. (Often because they're a hypothetical person, which is not very likely in this case.) I don't know if you're female, male, both, neither, other...

 

[SteakNEggs]

Crazy how this went from actual covid discussion to guys just attacking a poster because they got so amazingly triggered. It's obvious this place cannot have a mature conversation. A couple of you can don't get me wrong but guys like game, thriller, log add nothing but drama and want to pick fights. I remember why I left last go around when grown men were pissed that John Stockton said something that hurt nobody.

With that said, for reals. Take your 5th booster and be proud. Good for you.

Peace

 

[SteakNEggs]

"They" is the standard pronoun to use when you're uncertain of someone's gender. (Often because they're a hypothetical person, which is not very likely in this case.) I don't know if you're female, male, both, neither, other...

But there is only one of me. English though...(couldn't resist the irony)

 

[LogGrad98]

Crazy how this went from actual covid discussion to guys just attacking a poster because they got so amazingly triggered. It's obvious this place cannot have a mature conversation. A couple of you can don't get me wrong but guys like game, thriller, log add nothing but drama and want to pick fights. I remember why I left last go around when grown men were pissed that John Stockton said something that hurt nobody.

With that said, for reals. Take your 5th booster and be proud. Good for you.

Peace

Ok I'd just like to remind you that as soon as I saw how emotionally invested in all this you were I bowed out. I'm sure you'll find a way to turn that into an insult but I really did just try to remove myself from the conversation. I really do hope you can find peace.

 

[Gameface]

Ok I'd just like to remind you that as soon as I saw how emotionally invested in all this you were I bowed out. I'm sure you'll find a way to turn that into an insult but I really did just try to remove myself from the conversation. I really do hope you can find peace.

You're a better poster than I.

I will follow your example.

 

[gandalfe]

But there is only one of me. English though...(couldn't resist the irony)

They has been used as a non-specific genderless singular pronoun for 600 years. I doubt you're old enough to remember that far back, and thus have no grammatical reason to get upset about it.

I do note that I still don't know your gender.

I also find it interesting, given all the conversation about misrepresenting facts by leaving out context, that you left out the 2nd definition. Surely that was accidental.