Koldo
Outstanding Member
The original context was about the covid injections that was sold as "safe and effective". Flu vaccines are something different.
Meaning you disagree with her when she says that flu shots are not vaccines?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The original context was about the covid injections that was sold as "safe and effective". Flu vaccines are something different.
You mean the conspiracy theory that you just pulled out of your arse, right?I am disinclined to reception of your conspiracy theory.
No, that's not it.Meaning you disagree with her when she says that flu shots are not vaccines?
No, that's not it.
I mean the one you presented as to why the definition was changed.You mean the conspiracy theory that you just pulled out of your arse, right?
I didn't present one, you just pulled it out of your arse, like I said.I mean the one you presented as to why the definition was changed.
Yes you did.I didn't present one, you just pulled it out of your arse, like I said.
Yes you did.
Post #848
They had to change the definition of what vaccination is so that their gene therapy could be labelled as such.
You did not not claim "mislabeling".No, mislabelling something is not a conspiracy. Here's my #848
Mislabelling is implied by my claim. The point is that my claim doesn't imply that criminal intent exists, which is an essential element of conspiracy.You did not not claim "mislabeling".
You claimed changed the definition "so that their gene therapy could be labeled as such".
Mislabelling is implied by my claim. The point is that my claim doesn't imply that criminal intent exists, which is an essential element of conspiracy.
conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators: a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public
Definition of CONSPIRACY THEORY
a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators; also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.comconspiracy1:the act of conspiring together2a: an agreement among conspiratorsb: a group of conspirators
Definition of CONSPIRACY
the act of conspiring together; an agreement among conspirators; a group of conspirators… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.comI see absolutely nothing even implying that "criminal intent" is an 'essential element' of conspiracy.
what makes you think I am a lawyer?Try Black's dictionary of law.
Conspiracy Ik:mspirQsiy I. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
Ambiguity doesn't work in your favour. You brought up conspiracy theory, not me.what makes you think I am a lawyer?
Or that RF is a court of law?
I believe you may have confused me with someone who gives a rats arse what you think about it.I am still disinclined to accept your proposed conspiracy.
Yes I did.Ambiguity doesn't work in your favour. You brought up conspiracy theory, not me.
CDC is the source, as noted in the article provided.Source?
What about the continuing efforts to boogeyman the Covid vaccines? Why aren't you taking that into consideration?
CDC is the source, as noted in the article provided.
I'm not suggesting that boogey-manning the shot isn't factoring in. But at the end of the day, what the majoriy chooses is the indication of what the majority understands. The majority understands that the shot offers little-to-no benefit, and the disease isn't giving them a reason to conclude otherwise (a critical point). If it were, boogey-manning the shot would be ineffective because the evidence of massive disease and death would overwhelm the equation.
The same rules apply for arguments, since they're a form of commerce. The idea that the law doesn't apply is a big part of the reason for the CF which is the response of modern medicine to viruses in general and covid in particular.On an internet message board.
Not in a court of law.
What I'm committed to is identifying error in general, not your specific case. The figurative arse has meaning within the context of natural medicine.For someone who does not "give a rats arse" about it, you sure are committed to it....
Like "safe and effective" you mean? It wasn't safe for the 30 unfortunates who died from the jab in New Zealand according to whistleblower data.the overwhelming evidence