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

[SteakNEggs]

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.

View attachment 13814

You have anything to offer about covid or just pronouns you used to be dramatic?

Lol and honestly I thought we were messing around but you were serious lol. Thats funny. I couldn't care less what meaningless insecure pronoun you call me tbh. Actually wait.... Since we intellectuals can now change and invent random genders at any moment based off of nothing but how we're feeling, I now identify as Always Correct Gender so I'd hope you have the decency to admit my pronoun and start addressing me as such on every post from here on out. Let's not be a phobe here like you did assuming I'm a measley they're. How insulting. Me an Always Correct being called a they're.

 

[gandalfe]

You have anything to offer about covid or just pronouns you used to be dramatic?

Lol and honestly I thought we were messing around but you were serious lol. Thats funny. I couldn't care less what meaningless insecure pronoun you call me tbh. Actually wait.... Since we intellectuals can now change and invent random genders at any moment based off of nothing but how we're feeling, I now identify as Always Correct Gender so I'd hope you have the decency to admit my pronoun and start addressing me as such on every post from here on out. Let's not be a phobe here like you did assuming I'm a measley they're. How insulting. Me an Always Correct being called a they're.

As long as you remember to always refer to me as Lord High Almighty, we're good.

As far as COVID goes, you're proven pretty well that you're not reasonable on the subject, so... nah. I mean, I don't know if you can't be reasonable, or you just refuse to be, but a difference which makes no difference is no difference, so...

 

[SteakNEggs]

I mean, I don't know if you can't be reasonable, or you just refuse to be, but a difference which makes no difference is no difference, so...

Ah ah ah you're misgendering me. The sheer bigotry of Lord High Almighty genders . We Always Correct are renown for being reasonable and correct. That's part of our made up gender thats acceptable in today's perfectly sane society.

 

[gandalfe]

Ah ah ah you're misgendering me. The sheer bigotry of Lord High Almighty genders . We Always Correct are renown for being reasonable and correct. That's part of our made up gender thats acceptable in today's perfectly sane society.

2nd person has no genders, you buffoon. Find me a single case where anyone has complained seriously that the word "you" is misgendering and I'll concede your point.

Actually, on 2nd thought, don't bother. You're not worth my time. Back on the ignore list you go.

 

[SteakNEggs]

2nd person has no genders, you buffoon. Find me a single case where anyone has complained seriously that the word "you" is misgendering and I'll concede your point.

Actually, on 2nd thought, don't bother. You're not worth my time. Back on the ignore list you go.

How bigoted. Won't even identify me my correct gender and now says I don't even exist and even ignores my gender?! The Cakes, The Rainbow Cakes and my personal favorite Vampire Gender can have a gender but I can't have mine? The phobia...The intolerance...

Cakegender

Cakegender is a gastrogender that is related to cake, and is soft and fluffy like cake. It can also be sweet or warm. Cakegender can also come in different "flavors" which could change how the gender feels. You could also feel as your gender tastes like cake. One who is cakegender may also feel...

mogai-genders.fandom.com

 

[Red]

This is perhaps the most clear example of being set in ones ways because we have a situation where all the evidence is on one side. The guy said what he said and it has been confirmed that he would be in a position to know. There was also a subsequent official release by Pfizer that corroborated some of the most damning initial statements by the guy in the video clip as they tried to downplay the comments. Meanwhile the naysayers have nothing, zero, zilch in terms of evidence and yet are very clearly still convinced being correct. For some, no amount of evidence would be "sufficient" to change from an opinion already held even if the pre-held opinion was based on nothing other than what was wanted to be true.

And yet I clearly said “maybe he’s exactly who he said he was”. I very clearly indicated I could indeed accept that he is who he says and is telling the truth. My position is very obviously that I simply want to see much clearer verification. I did say I suspect it’s BS, but I left it open. But, we must factor in the error of YOUR ways: you see ONLY what you want to see. See how that works? You blame others for the things you yourself do! It’s called projection! Trump was great at it. Try to steal an election by claiming others already stole an election. You take after him. You see what you WANT to see in me, even after I left a clear message that I could indeed accept that he might be truthful.

So, once again, you are so full of ****, and quite full of yourself, per usual. It was not in the least an example of my being “set in my ways”. But I know you’ll try harder, your foolishness is relentless…

Beyond that, I do think it’s entirely fair for those who are skeptical of Project Veritas to be so. How could that not be mentioned in the context of this story….

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

 

[The Thriller]

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" Also all of a sudden it's important to consult with your doctor with everything related to vaccination. Now Pfizer say it's important to discuss if you're pregnant or breastfeeding in assessing vaccination ..??? Such interesting statements now as "These vaccines may not protect everyone" and my personal favourite after listing many recognised side effects they go on to say "These may not be all the possible side effects of these vaccines" All while including no actual numbers.


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

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed

The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Farcical.

Soooo… .00125 percent chance of adverse reactions to the vaccine? That isn’t incredibly rare or very low?

 

[Red]

This is perhaps the most clear example of being set in ones ways because we have a situation where all the evidence is on one side. The guy said what he said and it has been confirmed that he would be in a position to know. There was also a subsequent official release by Pfizer that corroborated some of the most damning initial statements by the guy in the video clip as they tried to downplay the comments. Meanwhile the naysayers have nothing, zero, zilch in terms of evidence and yet are very clearly still convinced being correct. For some, no amount of evidence would be "sufficient" to change from an opinion already held even if the pre-held opinion was based on nothing other than what was wanted to be true.

It occurs to me that this is a good reply by AI to illustrate that he is actually an enemy of skepticism. And as such, he’s therefore also the enemy of critical thinking. Because, basically, I, like others in this thread, simply expressed skepticism. And AI acts as if skepticism is somehow uncalled for here!! For thinking people, is skepticism really a negative attribute? Or is it a good “weapon” in the development of critical thinning skills? And think about it: who has come across as a proponent of crackdowns against teachers? Who has never found fault with crackdowns on tenure and academic freedom? The last thing AI would ever want from education is teaching children how to think on their own two feet.

And that he is an opponent of skeptical minds is written all over his reply above.

 

[LogGrad98]

It occurs to me that this is a good reply by AI to illustrate that he is actually an enemy of skepticism. And as such, he’s therefore also the enemy of critical thinking. Because, basically, I, like others in this thread, simply expressed skepticism. And AI acts as if skepticism is somehow uncalled for here!! For thinking people, is skepticism really a negative attribute? Or is it a good “weapon” in the development of critical thinning skills? And think about it: who has come across as a proponent of crackdowns against teachers? Who has never found fault with crackdowns on tenure and academic freedom? The last thing AI would ever want from education is teaching children how to think on their own two feet.

And that he is an opponent of skeptical minds is written all over his reply above.

Really his reply is fully in keeping with his troll persona. Trolls gonna troll. I'm convinced he doesn't really believe what he posts, he's here to entertain himself. As such he isn't worth responding to.

 

[Red]

Really his reply is fully in keeping with his troll persona. Trolls gonna troll. I'm convinced he doesn't really believe what he posts, he's here to entertain himself. As such he isn't worth responding to.

Yeah, sometimes that is how interpret him as well.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yeah, sometimes that is how interpret him as well.

He's so consistently so that it's hard to interpret it any other way. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and it's 23 and me comes back as 100% duck, well it's probably a duck.

 

[SteakNEggs]

He's so consistently so that it's hard to interpret it any other way. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and it's 23 and me comes back as 100% duck, well it's probably a duck.

Great addition again. Always offer nothing but is quick to **** on others. I suggest a mirror troll

 

[One Brow]

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

Truth sometimes requires going beyo9nd yes or no.

My god, you will not answer the question.

I answered every question, you just didn't like some of the answers.

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 agree. It was an entirely different misrepresentation.

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

I have not claimed you took things out of context over the course of this discussion.

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).

I have already explained why it is obvious the video is nothing but out-of-context bits.

Funny how you even blatantly left out the part where I said I was being facetious in one of those post.

Just one?

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.

I can't tell the difference between when you are being serious and when you are not. They seem equally ridiculous to me.

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.

There is nothing troublesome about anything Walker said.

Just something to think about as I'm done with it.

That's a smart decision on your part.

You are very good at manipulating an argument that isn't even there.

The only reason the argument is not there is because you are jumping at shadows.

I am talking about the actual video and it's context,

None of which is concerning in the slightest.

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 have discussed the video, also. I'm a multi-faceted responder.

I'm talking about a vider using video evidence. Video evidence of a guy saying exactly what HE said.

A video in which nothing he says is troubling in any way.

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

I'm sure I'll see you around again soon.

 

[Red]

Look, maybe everything he said before he tried to take it back is true

And you fail to even the entertain the idea that it is true

Do you see what I said? “Maybe everything he said before he tried to take it back is true” Tell me how that is a failure “to even entertain the idea that it is true?” And, at least twice in this thread, I said, to you, in so many words, “maybe he’s telling the truth”. Stop telling me I’m not willing to entertain that. You’re as bad as AI…

Don’t be like AI. Don’t treat skepticism as a crime! Skepticism is a VERY GOOD thing! It’s part of any rational persons critical thinking skills. If I said to you I would like to see the entire Veritas interview, and specifically I would like to see the entirety because it has been PROVEN that Veritas selectively edits their interview videos in a DISHONEST manner, how could you possibly find fault with that? It is absolutely not a conspiracy theory to simply state Veritas is a questionable source, so, could I simply see the unedited interview clip? That is not conspiracism, that is HEALTHY skepticism! Wake up, man. As far as I can see, nobody here is spouting conspiracy theories at all!!

And, I said maybe he’s being truthful! It’s right there for you to note, lol. Yet you tell me I fail to entertain that? How much clearer can I be that this is about a healthy dose of skepticism? Look, if you don’t want to consider the past history of Project Veritas, and instead simply do not look at that, just accept it and don’t look too close, that’s fine with me. But you are most assuredly confusing healthy skepticism, by me and others here, for conspiracy theory.

All I want is verification beyond any doubt. Silly me! That should include the unedited interview. Because, it has been shown that Project Veritas edited this video, and it has been proven that, in the past, they edited videos to convey misinformation. If I know without any doubt, that they edited interviews in the past to convey misinformation/disinformation, then tell me why I suddenly become a conspiracy theorist for expressing skepticism and wanting to see the entire interview, and more?

Why can we not be skeptical, and want to know more, without you saying we are conspiracy mongers, and simply don’t trust it all at this time?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

It occurs to me that this is a good reply by AI to illustrate that he is actually an enemy of skepticism. And as such, he’s therefore also the enemy of critical thinking. Because, basically, I, like others in this thread, simply expressed skepticism. And AI acts as if skepticism is somehow uncalled for here!!

What you are expressing isn't skepticism. Bringing up Trump and the 2020 election to make your point to claim Pfizer is lying about its actions isn't skepticism.

Ignore for a moment the involvement of Project Veritas. We can even ignore the statements of the guy caught on video. Focus solely on the carefully worded statement issued by Pfizer, knowing that a congressional inquiry is likely going to happen, and which is still on the Pfizer website along with being previously posted here in this thread.

virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells. In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.

This isn't a case of having to prove a negative. The party doing the action is admitting to doing the action. We can debate if that is a good thing or a bad thing but your claims of it never happening is not skepticism. It is proof that you believed beforehand they weren't and even when they themselves admit they were you are incapable of changing your opinion.

 

[Red]

What you are expressing isn't skepticism. Bringing up Trump and the 2020 election to make your point to claim Pfizer is lying about its actions isn't skepticism.

Correction. Bringing up Trump was used in service to my argument that you are an enemy of critical thinking skills and healthy skepticism, and not to claim Pfizer is lying. In this thread, you are an opponent of any degree of skepticism. When I realized that fact, it simply reminded me of how often you have come across as an enemy of education in general, that’s all. You don’t like critical thinking skills, or at least you’ve chosen to lash out against them in this thread. So your above comment is both irrelevant and meaningless. But, that’s just you doing you perhaps…

 

[Al-O-Meter]

you are an opponent of any degree of skepticism.

Do you have any evidence that Pfizer's official statement about its own actions is untrue?

virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells. In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.

 

[Red]

Experts: Pfizer tests on COVID vaccines, treatment in line with industry standards

A statement released Jan. 27 by Pfizer in response to allegations it was conducting risky “gain of function” research triggered another round of false speculation against one of the top makers of COVID vaccines.

apnews.com

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Experts: Pfizer tests on COVID vaccines, treatment in line with industry standards

A statement released Jan. 27 by Pfizer in response to allegations it was conducting risky “gain of function” research triggered another round of false speculation against one of the top makers of COVID vaccines.

apnews.com

It is a strawman. Are you so blinded to new information that you cannot see it? The guy in the video never claimed they were doing "gain of function" research. SteakNEggs never claimed they were doing "gain of function" research. The Pfizer statement never claimed they were doing "gain of function" research. I never claimed they were doing "gain of function" research. Who cares if the AP wants to argue over the definition of "gain of function" research?

The official admission from Pfizer is damning. They are engaging in engineering variants of COVID to yield resistant strains of the virus. Do you have any evidence that Pfizer's official statement about its own actions is untrue?

virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells. In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir in our secure Biosafety level 3 (BSL3) laboratory to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains of the virus.

 

[One Brow]

The official admission from Pfizer is damning.

Why?

They are engaging in engineering variants of COVID to yield resistant strains of the virus.

Good. That's what they should be doing.