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

[One Brow]

Yeah that is simpler than mine if you are taking the entire post apart for sure.

Sometimes the goal is to take a post apart. Sometimes it's to focus on the building blocks as opposed to the structure.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

When using Chrome on a PC, I just hit the enter key, and it creates a gap between the quotes automatically.


As I made clear in my dialogue over 10 or so pages, I would expect a vaccine company to test the virus as well as the drug, try and see what mutations it might assume, evaluate vaccine efficacy against these mutations, etc. That is responsible, future-oriented, and keeps an eye to future profits. While I don't trust Pfizer more than any other large corporation, in this particular regard I consider that good corporate citizenship.

There were several hypotheticals in the video that were discussed, and the interviewee was so inebriated that he didn't always make it clear he was discussing a hypothetical (like talking about hypothetical impacts to the endocrine system), but it was clear enough that he was not discussing actual effects.

Aside from those two points, I don't recall anything that SteakandEggs thought was problematic. Could you be more specific about the violations of trust? Or, if you were referring to one of the two points above, could you explain why it's more ethical to ignore future problem than prepare for them, or to speculate on potential bad outcomes?


I appreciate the opportunity.


Racism affects everyone, because we are all raised with it. As a human, I was influenced by my racist upbringing, and I struggle daily to be aware of its messages and sift them out from reality. Saying person A is feeding into the racism in society does not mean they are hateful, spiteful, or unusual in any way.


All people are racist, including black people, but some people (including some black people) buy more into the racist thought-lines of our society than others. Sometimes, we call these people "self-hating". A similar phenomenon happens to gay people, trans people, women, etc.


To focus on a couple more liberals, Warren Buffet supports politicians that claim they want to raise his taxes, but never seem to. He claims to be giving away all his money on his death, but most of that will go to a foundation that supports his views, and that his family will control and get money out of. Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard claims to be giving away his fortune to fight climate change, but again it's to charities that he controls. Do your billionaire clients act differently with their money?

Remember the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25, if you want to refresh). Much will be expected to whom much has been given. Even as an atheist, I find much value in that message.

It used to be that family fortunes would dissipate over generations. Instead, the billionaires find ways to conserve wealth and power over generations, gathering more and more for themselves. As much as anything else, that's what's undermining our country.


Has Soros killed anyone, to your knowledge? Do you have evidence he is a pedophile? A drug-lord? A wife abuser? His success seems to be based on a couple of successful prediction of financial bubbles and correctly managing his hedge fund. What has he actually done that earn him these names?

Wow. We see the world so differently. We do not even agree on the problems, so it's no wonder that we are miles apart on the solutions. Sadly I do not have the amount of free time that you do to debate these issues, especially in a forum that has proven itself so unsatisfactory at bringing about worthwhile change. I do appreciate your willingness to be civil, though.

I'm flabbergasted that you can't perceive why that video is so concerning to so many people. I think you must just enjoy being obtuse. I also can't imagine why you are okay with how non-transparent Pfizer has been in their response to it, other than that you believe their agenda is in alignment with yours and therefore you are willing to give them a pass. People will continue to be vaccine hesitant until companies like Pfizer (and government organizations as well) show them the respect they deserve by being transparent. It is blatantly obvious that these people are lying to us. Tell us the truth, and then allow us to make our own decisions based upon that information. That didn't used to be a hard concept to understand. It was one of the bedrocks of this country, in fact.

Your comments about racism highlight a much bigger obstacle to our communication. We don't agree on the problem. While I agree with you that racism cannot be tolerated I have a feeling that the people who I see as the heros of these various minority communities are the same people you would describe as the self-haters.

I think you are largely incorrect about some sort of change in the diminishment of family fortunes. If anything, the opposite of what you are suggesting is the case. We live in a world where massive fortunes are being made in very short timeframes, not one where royalty is generally protected by nothing other than birthright for generation after generation. Of course billionaires try to set their families up the best they possibly can. I do that too. I assume that you do it as well. I recently read Michelle Obama's biography. Her parents certainly did it. That should surprise no one. All good parents do.

To my knowledge Soros has not pulled the trigger, or raped a child, or tripped anyone's grandma, but what he has done is invest millions upon millions in electing criminal friendly District Attorneys who ignore legislation and disrespect law enforcement by unleashing the worst of the worst upon the streets where they, predictably, commit more crime. Those people do pull triggers and rape children and trip grandmas. It is a crime against all of us for Soros to circumvent our justice system by putting politicians in place who refuse to enforce the law. Why does he do iI? He is either nefarious (and likely benefiting financially from his society damaging actions, especially given his penchant for selling short) or incredibly callous to the fact that the real consequences of his soft-on-crime policies are vastly different than the theoretical imaginations of those who originally suggested their implementation.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Actually if you read through the threads of those conversations, this came out as frustration that he refused to acknowledge what was said, while demanding his every reply have a response or he would label everyone with vile insults, while he refused to respond to valid questions in kind. After enough of this, and his own devolution into insults and full-on ad hominem, it resulted in frustration and some, at first, legitimate questioning of if he was even understanding the conversation, then it might have crossed the line. Hence why I bowed out of the conversation, as it was going nowhere without a good faith back and forth.

This is a flat out lie. I started fighting back after guys like you came in, added nothing but bullying, then like this you blame me. You literally added nothing but attacks. The rest of your post is a lie. I'd ask for examples of what I ignored but you won't be specific, you'll just lie again.

Be specific, what did I not answer? What post? What specifically did you add? What exactly was I not understanding?

I bet he won't answer these questions.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Yes, no one on the Internet ever faked a video or any supporting information for personal gain. Never happened. Not even once.

Here's you claimimg a video was fake... I asked for evidence and you and your hero Thriller got vile, not me. See unlike you, I can back my **** up. You won't because you're a liar.


Here's where YOU and Thriller start picking fights and insulting my intelligence not me... We were having a meaningful conversation until you showed up and added nothing. Page 32

Nailed it. @LogGrad98 is the one who’s got conspiracies.

Well done

Final tip: put away your phone/step away from your computer. Go outside. Maybe take a walk. Do some basic critical thinking. Either everyone else is wrong OR your source (that confirms your biases) that has a long history of lying, just got caught doing the same thing they’ve been doing for 15+ years now.

Why should they when they know it's garbage? Do you expect every organization to respond to every single whack job or fake attack hit on the Internet? Man you are naive. But you say WE gots conspiracies? Are you even reading what you are writing? You are defending the motherload of all virus conspiracies from a known bad actor, but when we ask for simple verifiable proof of simple existence, not even corroborating the actual story, just one thing that shows they guy is really a real person, you say WE "gots conspiracies". lol

 

[One Brow]

Wow. We see the world so differently. We do not even agree on the problems, so it's no wonder that we are miles apart on the solutions. Sadly I do not have the amount of free time that you do to debate these issues, especially in a forum that has proven itself so unsatisfactory at bringing about worthwhile change. I do appreciate your willingness to be civil, though.

I'm flabbergasted that you can't perceive why that video is so concerning to so many people. I think you must just enjoy being obtuse. I also can't imagine why you are okay with how non-transparent Pfizer has been in their response to it, other than that you believe their agenda is in alignment with yours and therefore you are willing to give them a pass. People will continue to be vaccine hesitant until companies like Pfizer (and government organizations as well) show them the respect they deserve by being transparent. It is blatantly obvious that these people are lying to us. Tell us the truth, and then allow us to make our own decisions based upon that information. That didn't used to be a hard concept to understand. It was one of the bedrocks of this country, in fact.

Your comments about racism highlight a much bigger obstacle to our communication. We don't agree on the problem. While I agree with you that racism cannot be tolerated I have a feeling that the people who I see as the heros of these various minority communities are the same people you would describe as the self-haters.

I think you are largely incorrect about some sort of change in the diminishment of family fortunes. If anything, the opposite of what you are suggesting is the case. We live in a world where massive fortunes are being made in very short timeframes, not one where royalty is generally protected by nothing other than birthright for generation after generation. Of course billionaires try to set their families up the best they possibly can. I do that too. I assume that you do it as well. I recently read Michelle Obama's biography. Her parents certainly did it. That should surprise no one. All good parents do.

To my knowledge Soros has not pulled the trigger, or raped a child, or tripped anyone's grandma, but what he has done is invest millions upon millions in electing criminal friendly District Attorneys who ignore legislation and disrespect law enforcement by unleashing the worst of the worst upon the streets where they, predictably, commit more crime. Those people do pull triggers and rape children and trip grandmas. It is a crime against all of us for Soros to circumvent our justice system by putting politicians in place who refuse to enforce the law. Why does he do iI? He is either nefarious (and likely benefiting financially from his society damaging actions, especially given his penchant for selling short) or incredibly callous to the fact that the real consequences of his soft-on-crime policies are vastly different than the theoretical imaginations of those who originally suggested their implementation.

I do understand why the video is concerning to some people. I think I just have a different "why" than you. From my perspective, the video feeds into the fear-mongering that so many people engaged when they were asked to change their routines for the sake of their neighbors. You can make a lot of money in this world by telling people what they want to hear. 100 years ago it was literal snake oil, in 2020 it was an anti-malarial (a bacterium) medicine against a coronavirus-induced disease.

What do you feel Pfizer needs to be transparent about? The contents of their vaccine is public information. The tracking of side effects occurs in publicly available data sets. Is there information from Pfizer that you have tried to research, and found not available? Do you feel you have a right to know what the R&D departments of GE, or Ford, or Ralston-Purina is up to (destroying the concept of intellectual property)? Possibly, did you reach this position on transparency because you are hearing trusted sources say they are not being transparent?

Heroes can also be self-haters. Getting through a door that allows for 1000 people, and asking why millions don't go through it, is self-hate.

Rockefeller made his fortune in one generation (he earned the modern-day equivalent of 1.5B in interest on his investments in 1904), as did Carnegie, Chase, etc. This is not a new phenomenon. Four generations later, the various Rockefellers are wealthy, but not billionaires. With the ways we have given our current slate of billionaires to avoid taxes (especially estate taxes), their great-grandchildren will still be billionaires. They spend tens of millions inn lobbying to make sure that it stays so. You're right that every parent tries to protect and set-up their child, that doesn't mean the government has to be complicit in this task for the ultra-wealthy.

There are no criminal-friendly District Attorneys, and no one is letting the worst back upon the streets, much less the worst of the worst. Bail reform can't apply to people who would never have been offered bail in the first place. Further, the reform-minded DAs don't have worse outcomes that the get-tough DAs. Property crime fell almost everywhere in the US during the pandemic, homicides went up almost everywhere, regardless of DA.

 

[SteakNEggs]

I didn't fabricate anything. I googled one thing, his name. Then I posted the things I found. You can do the same thing. Please do in fact. Clear this all up by showing he's a real person and who they claim he is. Simple right? See I even tried that and got nothing. Can you? Do you even dare to try?

This is a legit conspiracy. You were claiming this guy doesn't even exist. A guy on actual video is fake yet you started hating on me because i didn't fulfil your idiotic claim to prove Jordan Walker is a real human though he's literally on video. Common sense says that if he was fake, Pfizer would say so. How is that such a difficult concept?

You got testy. You started the crazy conspiracies that this was a fake guy. You literally got angry that I couldn't prove a guy on video is a real person lol.

Receipts... You started the insults.

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

This article seems germane to the direction this thread has taken. https://www.theonion.com/it-is-journalism-s-sacred-duty-to-endanger-the-lives-of-1850126997

jazzfanz.com

 

[Red]

Does anyone know what the conspiracy is that some posters are said to be promoting? I see a great deal of skepticism. But skepticism isn’t conspiracy mongering. It’s really just healthy critical thinking.

I think some of the skepticism seems to be rooted in distrust of Project Veritas. Why this initial distrust? Apparently born of knowledge of PV’s prior history:

https://aftmichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/what-is-project-veritas12.pdf

Knowing this history, is it truly wrong, truly a misguided response, to immediately think something along the lines of “uh, oh, not those guys, not sure they have much integrity at all”? The video is obviously edited. Again, knowing the history of PV, is it truly wrong to conclude “I need to see the entirety of this video”?

I still am missing the part regarding a conspiracy theory promoted by LogGrad98 and others. What specific conspiracy was promoted? I see this:

Um, no, I simply googled the guy, then posted things from sources other than PV, NONE of which can verify the video. Then it opened up the door of the video might be fake. Any good cynic or simply thinking person will question the veracity of seemingly fantastic single-source "evidence". So then I found a really well-balanced snopes article where they just tried to find the guy and even admitted he might be who they say he is. Then I got curious and did my own search on LinkedIn. Found hundreds of execs at Pfizer, but not that guy. To be that casts doubt on the veracity of the evidence. Then take into account that PV is known for putting out evidence that has been trumped up or outright faked. All this together raises a reasonable doubt.

I see nothing about that that strikes me as conspiracy mongering. I see someone looking for clarity.

The other thing I was more interested in than whether the whistleblower was who he said he was, (and I did think it odd that Pfizer didn’t not mention him one way or the other in their statement) was the Pfizer statement itself, and exactly why it was scaring people. I know somewhat, but I am not a virologist, I must depend on experts who can clarify that statement for me. I tried two things. Looking for expert guidance, I posted in this thread one doctor’s video analysis of Pfizer’s statement. He described it as scare mongering by “the usual crew”. And described why. I also asked ChatGTP to analyze the entire statement, looking for things stated that might seem to contradict other things the statement said. And I asked ChatGTP to analyze just portions of the statement. I got some results that said “gain of function”, and one analysis of the entire statement that said “not describing gain of function”.

My problem was not whether the whistleblower was “real”, but was the hysteria-like response justified. I would say now that it must depend on what one thinks is being described. By the whistleblower, and Pfizer. Some are alarmed by Pfizer’s statement, some, like the doctor I posted, not at all.

I’m not a virologist. Healthy skepticism is not conspiracy mongering. And I think labeling people who simply want confirmation of identity of the whistleblower, or see the unedited video, or not being sure if the Pfizer statement should gravely concern one, or not, as doing “nothing but crazy conspiracies” instead of what they are really doing, using their own mind and abilities to understand this, is misguided.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Does anyone know what the conspiracy is that some posters are said to be promoting? I see a great deal of skepticism. But skepticism isn’t conspiracy mongering. It’s really just healthy critical thinking.

I think some of the skepticism seems to be rooted in distrust of Project Veritas. Why this initial distrust? Apparently born of knowledge of PV’s prior history:

https://aftmichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/what-is-project-veritas12.pdf

Knowing this history, is it truly wrong, truly a misguided response, to immediately think something along the lines of “uh, oh, not those guys, not sure they have much integrity at all”? The video is obviously edited. Again, knowing the history of PV, is it truly wrong to conclude “I need to see the entirety of this video”?

I still am missing the part regarding a conspiracy theory promoted by LogGrad98 and others. What specific conspiracy was promoted? I see this:



I see nothing about that that strikes me as conspiracy mongering. I see someone looking for clarity.

The other thing I was more interested in than whether the whistleblower was who he said he was, (and I did think it odd that Pfizer didn’t not mention him one way or the other in their statement) was the Pfizer statement itself, and exactly why it was scaring people. I know somewhat, but I am not a virologist, I must depend on experts who can clarify that statement for me. I tried two things. Looking for expert guidance, I posted in this thread one doctor’s video analysis of Pfizer’s statement. He described it as scare mongering by “the usual crew”. And described why. I also asked ChatGTP to analyze the entire statement, looking for things stated that might seem to contradict other things the statement said. And I asked ChatGTP to analyze just portions of the statement. I got some results that said “gain of function”, and one analysis of the entire statement that said “not describing gain of function”.

My problem was not whether the whistleblower was “real”, but was the hysteria-like response justified. I would say now that it must depend on what one thinks is being described. By the whistleblower, and Pfizer. Some are alarmed by Pfizer’s statement, some, like the doctor I posted, not at all.

I’m not a virologist. Healthy skepticism is not conspiracy mongering. And I think labeling people who simply want confirmation of identity of the whistleblower, or see the unedited video, or not being sure if the Pfizer statement should gravely concern one, or not, as doing “nothing but crazy conspiracies” instead of what they are really doing, using their own mind and abilities to understand this, is misguided.

That a guy on video is not real when you have zero evidence, none, zip, nada, that he's not. That is something you guys fabricated out of thin air. That is a conspiracy.

I asked a simple question. If the guy was not real, why would pfizer not say so? Would that not literally squash this entire story? Yes it would. I understand that PV is known to edit videos like every single news organization does to fit a narrative but there is literally nothing there that PV just fabricated a random person like Log and others conspired.

 

[Gameface]

Asking a question is not the same as making a claim.

That's not just how English works, I'm pretty sure that's just how human language works.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Asking a question is not the same as making a claim.

That's not just how English works, I'm pretty sure that's just how human language works.

"Please do in fact. Clear this all up by showing he's a real person and who they claim he is. Simple right?"
-log
That's not a question. That is literally log asking me to prove that the guy on video is real. He's literally insisting that I prove him wrong though he was the one who made the conspiracy that the guy on video fake. He even said it was possible CGI lolol

"You can't cgi? You can't have an actor play a role with a script? You can edit other videos together to make it say what you want? That isn't done literally every single day on the Internet? You are starting to sound more and more like some wild-eyed guy living under a bridge."

Why should they when they know it's garbage? Do you expect every organization to respond to every single whack job or fake attack hit on the Internet? Man you are naive. But you say WE gots conspiracies? Are you even reading what you are writing? You are defending the motherload of all virus conspiracies from a known bad actor, but when we ask for simple verifiable proof of simple existence, not even corroborating the actual story, just one thing that shows they guy is really a real person, you say WE "gots conspiracies". lol

Seems pretty obvious that he's insisting that a guy on video is fake. There is no question marks here. There is just conspiracy.

At least stick to your guns for once. Now you are moving the goal post.

 

[One Brow]

@Al-O-Meter @SteakNEggs @Joe Bagadonuts ,

I know it's fun complaining about your treatment from other posters (this applies much less to Joe Bagadonuts, for which I am grateful), but could someone take the time to point out why, assuming the video in the quote below is legitimate, that it is something to worry about?

Scary **** guys and gals... One of the top guys at Pfizer admitting that there's a possibility of serious side effects down the road.

“I hope nobody is growing three legs or something like that, yeah, or the entire next generation is super f***** up. Could you imagine the scandal? Oh my God I would take Pfizer off my resume.”

"I hope we don’t discover something really bad down the line. I hope we don’t find out that somehow this mRNA lingers in the body, because it has to be affecting something hormonal to impact menstrual cycles.”


View: https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1621333409422315520?s=20&t=hDKzfS8XztKQ_DKIX9iq7w

 

[Gameface]

"Please do in fact. Clear this all up by showing he's a real person and who they claim he is. Simple right?"
-log
That's not a question. That is literally log asking me to prove that the guy on video is real. He's literally insisting that I prove him wrong though he was the one who made the conspiracy that the guy on video fake. He even said it was possible CGI lolol

"You can't cgi? You can't have an actor play a role with a script? You can edit other videos together to make it say what you want? That isn't done literally every single day on the Internet? You are starting to sound more and more like some wild-eyed guy living under a bridge."



Seems pretty obvious that he's insisting that a guy on video is fake. There is no question marks here. There is just conspiracy.

At least stick to your guns for once. Now you are moving the goal post.

You made an actual claim. One that the video was legit and should be considered as such in evaluating your arguments/

When you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Log was asking for you to substantiate your claim.

You don't seem to understand these very basic distinctions. My comment you quoted was not intended to create a direct interaction between you and me. I see no real value in engaging with you. I made the comment for the benefit of anyone following along with this discussion.

 

[SteakNEggs]

@Al-O-Meter @SteakNEggs @Joe Bagadonuts ,

I know it's fun complaining about your treatment from other posters (this applies much less to Joe Bagadonuts, for which I am grateful), but could someone take the time to point out why, assuming the video in the quote below is legitimate, that it is something to worry about?

A main guy at Pfizer admitting that some of the worries people had about the vaccine could possibly be true?

A head guy at Pfizer literally admitting and I quote “I hope nobody is growing three legs or something like that, yeah, or the entire next generation is super f***** up. Could you imagine the scandal? Oh my God I would take Pfizer off my resume.”

Why would he "take Pfizer off my resume"? Lol he even calls it a scandal if true. I really don't understand your question as even the guy is admitting in the quote it would be a scandal and that he would take pfizer off of hi resume.

Right?

As one of those people who questioned the vaccine, that is extremely important. Especially with how terrible the force vax crowd was.

 

[SteakNEggs]

You made an actual claim. One that the video was legit and should be considered as such in evaluating your arguments/

When you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Log was asking for you to substantiate your claim.

You don't seem to understand these very basic distinctions. My comment you quoted was not intended to create a direct interaction between you and me. I see no real value in engaging with you. I made the comment for the benefit of anyone following along with this discussion.

There is video evidence dude... You said it was fake not me... That is on YOU not me. YOU brought up the conspiracy that it was fake, not me. A video is very very sufficient evidence imo.

I have no reason to prove to you that you think the video is fake. That is your accusation not mine.

 

[One Brow]

A main guy at Pfizer admitting that some of the worries people had about the vaccine could possibly be true?

Saying something "could possibly be true" is pretty close to saying nothing about it.

A head guy at Pfizer literally admitting and I quote “I hope nobody is growing three legs or something like that, yeah, or the entire next generation is super f***** up. Could you imagine the scandal? Oh my God I would take Pfizer off my resume.”

What is the admission? You think there is an actual chance of three legs?

Why would he "take Pfizer off my resume"? Lol he even calls it a scandal if true. I really don't understand your question as even the guy is admitting in the quote it would be a scandal and that he would take pfizer off of hi resume.

Right. It's "would be" and "would take", not 'is' and 'did take'. He's engaging in far-reaching hypotheticals. Hypothetically, India could launch a nuclear assault on the US; I don't spend all day in a bomb shelter based on that hypothetical.

Right?

As one of those people who questioned the vaccine, that is extremely important. Especially with how terrible the force vax crowd was.

Not one US person was forced to get a vaccine, there is no "forced vax crowd".

Basically, you are saying you are scared of shadows, and that this fear is legitimate. I not going to live my life in fear of shadows.

 

[Gameface]

There is video evidence dude... You said it was fake not me... That is on YOU not me. YOU brought up the conspiracy that it was fake, not me. A video is very very sufficient evidence imo.

I have no reason to prove to you that you think the video is fake. That is your accusation not mine.

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS FAKE

You damn clown

SNE on my ever growing ignore list. I should probably just stop coming to jazzfanz

 

[SteakNEggs]

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS FAKE

You damn clown

SNE on my ever growing ignore list. I should probably just stop coming to jazzfanz

So we agree, it's not fake?

And you just prove my point at your response that it's you dudes who get so bent out of shape and start threatening to ignore. That seems like the inability to actually have a conversation and an excuse to not back yourself up to me. There's no reason to get all butt hurt and put me on ignore lol. Well, I admit I did start pushing buttons but thats after you guys started coming after me but that's besideds the point. You guys started with the emotions and keep pushing me, and I responded in kind.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Saying something "could possibly be true" is pretty close to saying nothing about it.


What is the admission? You think there is an actual chance of three legs?


Right. It's "would be" and "would take", not 'is' and 'did take'. He's engaging in far-reaching hypotheticals. Hypothetically, India could launch a nuclear assault on the US; I don't spend all day in a bomb shelter based on that hypothetical.


Not one US person was forced to get a vaccine, there is no "forced vax crowd".

Basically, you are saying you are scared of shadows, and that this fear is legitimate. I not going to live my life in fear of shadows.

No, I'm afraid that the vaccine as admitted by one of the main guys that helped create it can have severe side effects. This has been a worry since it first came out and now having one of the main guys that helped with the vaccine admit that there could be side effects puts some vindication on what we were common sensically worried about.

As far as you constantly trying to play my words as something they are not? That's you just looking to argue. It's actually really stupid. The word "admit" has more than one meaning. When I say admit I'm using it as "to make acknowledgment" not admit as fact. Stop creating something out of nothing... I'll start using "acknowledge" though you'll still find a way to start an argument. I've never claimed what he said was factual (though I personally think he's spot on) I've said he said what he said. He admitted (acknowledged) that there could be severe side effects. He didn't say it's factual he said it's a possibility. To me that is a huge "acknowledgement" for someone on his position.

Definition of ADMIT

to allow scope for : permit; to concede as true or valid; to allow entry (as to a place, fellowship, or privilege)… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[One Brow]

No, I'm afraid that the vaccine as admitted by one of the main guys that helped create it can have severe side effects.

All medications have side effects. The side effects for the Pfizer vaccine are standard, and rarely severe. Unless you are allergic to its contents, you are better off getting the vaccine than catching covid while unvaccinated.

This has been a worry since it first came out and now having one of the main guys that helped with the vaccine admit that there could be side effects puts some vindication on what we were common sensically worried about.

The actual side effects have always been publicly acknowledged.

When I say admit I'm using it as "to make acknowledgment" not admit as fact. Stop creating something out of nothing...

How do you "make acknowledgement" of a hypothetical? Your turning a hypothetical into a concern is creating something out of nothing.

I'll start using "acknowledge" though you'll still find a way to start an argument.

You can only "acknowledge" something that is true. Your use of it would be every bit as deceitful as "admit".

I've never claimed what he said was factual (though I personally think he's spot on) I've said he said what he said.

Which part do you think factual, as opposed to hypothetical, and why?

He admitted (acknowledged) that there could be severe side effects. He didn't say it's factual he said it's a possibility. To me that is a huge "acknowledgement" for someone on his position.

The possibility of side effects has always been communicated. There's an ongoing system to track side effects. Until actual side effects show up, there are only possibilities. It's possible that, the next time you go out to eat, the waiter/server will poison you with ricin. I doubt that will stop you from ever eating out.

 

[SteakNEggs]

I think it came from a lab
I think there are more side effects than admitted
I think Pfizer is using COVID as a "cash cow" thus upping the pricing hundreds of percents
I think mutating a virus to make it "more potent" is obvious gain of function by definition
It's already known to have effects on the menstrual cycle
I think him saying government officials are keen to letting things slide because pharma has lobbied a lot of money and in return they get leniency.


I think him saying "don't tell anyone" countless times or "I'll take pfizer off of my resume", or "could you imagine the scandal" proves that he damn well knows what he's saying is extremely troublesome and could be bad. I mean duh.... You don't say "don't tell anyone" if it's not meant to be hidden.