What's new

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

This article seems germane to the direction this thread has taken.

 
I would really like to believe you are not this stupid, that you do understand that development is complex and multi-faceted, that you can have mismatches in gender just as much as you can have eyes of different colors. No mysticism needed.
Human gametes are a binary. There is ova and sperm. There are no attack helicopter gametes, no zir gametes, and boys don't make ova regardless of what pronouns they may list on their emails. The religious dogma you are pushing is sick.
 
Hilarious coming from the Latter Day Saints.
So your assumption is everyone here is a Latter Day Saint? Or that everyone here speaks for all Latter Day Saints? Or do you just like to ridicule people for their religious preferences, even if that's just in your own head?
 
I find it very interesting, about a year ago, you could lose your whole social media presence for saying this…


Here is the study link:

By the way, who funded this study? Mr Vaccination himself:

Funding​

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.

People shouted down this idea in the media:

Or on JazzFanz:
517ED75F-FB7D-4DAC-83A9-2A3E8D0A0DC3.jpeg

Maybe he wasn’t “completely wrong”. Another reason why you don’t stop the information flow. Why do people leave this forum? Because a few people gang together to dismiss, intimidate and ridicule a person who has a different opinion and thought.
 
This article seems germane to the direction this thread has taken.

I inferred a request to move the discussion, and thought it fair.
 
Maybe he wasn’t “completely wrong”. Another reason why you don’t stop the information flow. Why do people leave this forum? Because a few people gang together to dismiss, intimidate and ridicule a person who has a different opinion and thought.
I certainly could have worded that better. He was completely wrong in using this as a justification for not getting vaccinated. Being vaccinated after having had covid offers better protection than just having had covid. Thank you for the opportunity to correct my error.
 
I certainly could have worded that better. He was completely wrong in using this as a justification for not getting vaccinated. Being vaccinated after having had covid offers better protection than just having had covid. Thank you for the opportunity to correct my error.
And the problem with not getting the vaccine because you could get better protection from COVID by getting COVID is that you have to get COVID in that case and COVID can kill you. So yeah, if you got COVID maybe skip the vaccine if you want to, but getting COVID to protect yourself from COVID was always an incredibly stupid argument.
 
I didn't say anything about "correcting a liberal bias". I said two of the stories are resolved (so there is no more news), and the third is ongoing, despite your claim it's not being covered.

You seem to share a persecution complex that is so common among conservatives. I'll try to stop feeding it.
2c0864e6-cbce-473d-9026-04ed08917108_text.gif

Congrats! Once again you have destroyed an argument that I didn't make. I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension.
 
And the problem with not getting the vaccine because you could get better protection from COVID by getting COVID is that you have to get COVID in that case and COVID can kill you. So yeah, if you got COVID maybe skip the vaccine if you want to, but getting COVID to protect yourself from COVID was always an incredibly stupid argument.
Yeah this was my thought. It depends on what you mean by "better". To me getting the same protection against a disease with minimal chance of side-effects without, you know, risking your life by getting said disease, is a pretty good definition of "better".
 
I'm not to proud to ask for help. What was the point I missed?
Okay Mr. Vortex of Something or Other, I claimed that the Fact Checker Media has a liberal bias and gave three examples of stories where, once the facts came out, they reality was far more positive for conservatives and negative for liberals than the initial Fact Checker claims. You responded by saying that two of those three stories are resolved and the other is partially resolved as if that invalidates anything I said. In all three cases the initial bias was strongly liberal, just as I claimed. And in all three cases conservatives looked a lot better once the real facts were undeniable. The fact that these stories are resolved does not weaken my point as you keep trying to claim. It is my point.


In your most recent post you said all of that initial stuff again, despite having been corrected, and then you added that I claim the media is not covering the Hunter Biden story. Where did I make that claim? Uhh, nowhere. You just made it up. Of course, it is easily proven that the media ignored and covered up the laptop story back when it broke

I didn't say anything about "correcting a liberal bias". I said two of the stories are resolved (so there is no more news), and the third is ongoing, despite your claim it's not being covered.

You seem to share a persecution complex that is so common among conservatives. I'll try to stop feeding it.
You attribute arguments to me that I did not make and then ignore the ones that I do make? What a waste of time
 
Okay Mr. Vortex of Something or Other, I claimed that the Fact Checker Media has a liberal bias and gave three examples of stories where, once the facts came out, they reality was far more positive for conservatives and negative for liberals than the initial Fact Checker claims.
There were multiple fact checks by the same people of the Smollett and Sandmann cases? I'll need to see some evidence of that.

You responded by saying that two of those three stories are resolved and the other is partially resolved as if that invalidates anything I said. In all three cases the initial bias was strongly liberal, just as I claimed. And in all three cases conservatives looked a lot better once the real facts were undeniable.
Do tell me which conservatives looked better after the Smollett case.

The initial coverage of the Biden laptop case was from the New York Post, a conservative paper, and I frequently heard that there would be all kinds of scandalous material on Joe Biden. It was thrown around for months. So far, nothing has come to light. You've got to be in a pretty insulated state to think that came out in favor of conservatives.

I can still easily match you five-to-one, looking at news stories where the conservatives claims were shown to be unfounded. Bring your full list.

Of course, it is easily proven that the media ignored and covered up the laptop story back when it broke
It was down-played by Twitter for less than two days. After all this time, there is still no story (we knew long before the laptop that Hunter was a drug addict and taking advantage of his father's name).

You attribute arguments to me that I did not make and then ignore the ones that I do make? What a waste of time
Sorry I misunderstood. Your actual argument is even worse than the one I thought you were making, but I should have paid closer attention.
 
I looked at the very first laptop story. Here's the headline:

Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad

No such email evidence exists. The truth was much less favorable to conservatives. Even of your three hand-picked examples, you got one wrong.
 
Being vaccinated after having had covid offers better protection than just having had covid.

looolllllzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Moronic blanket statement

Brought to you by PPfffizzzzeeerrrrrrr
 
I’ve had ChatGPT produce contradictory answers for slightly differently worded queries, but just thought I’d try this….

Is this statement accurate: Being vaccinated after having had covid offers better protection than just having had covid?

Yes, the statement is accurate. Getting vaccinated after having had COVID-19 offers better protection against future infections compared to just having had COVID-19 alone.

While having COVID-19 may provide some level of immunity against future infections, it is unclear how long this immunity lasts and how effective it is against new variants of the virus. In contrast, vaccines have been shown to provide strong and durable immunity against COVID-19, including against new variants.

Additionally, vaccines can help boost and extend the immune response to the virus, even in individuals who have previously had COVID-19. Studies have shown that people who have had COVID-19 and then received a vaccine have a stronger and more durable immune response compared to those who have only had COVID-19.

Therefore, it is recommended that individuals who have previously had COVID-19 still receive the COVID-19 vaccine to maximize their protection against future infections.
 
Top