8
SaltyJollyRoger 8 points ago +8 / -0

Unfortunately mistrust of government and industry is the right and healthy choice every time.

12
SaltyJollyRoger 12 points ago +12 / -0

You're definitely not wrong. It actually seems like a lot of initial political viewpoints are just theatrics to get them in the door.

I didn't pay any attention to Obama's campaign because I was still unawake then, but I find it hard to believe he was ever actually against gay marriage.

0
SaltyJollyRoger 0 points ago +1 / -1

Absolutely not.

https://viroliegy.com/category/rabies/

Far too many oddities around rabies anyway. Standard incubation is reported to be 6 to 8 weeks but has miraculously taken 6 and 25 years before popping up. But it's symptom range has been so expanded that a differential diagnosis list offers a lot of alternative explanations.

To add onto this no one has ever been able to identify the mechanism by which cytotoxic cell death causes hydrophobia - but we have seen people under the influence of intoxicating substances induce hydrophobia on themselves psychosomatically.

And none of that is even touching the fraudulence of Louis Pastuer in his rabies vaccine experiments.

2
SaltyJollyRoger 2 points ago +2 / -0

I keep wondering if this will galvanize an entire population against the medical fraud industry

3
SaltyJollyRoger 3 points ago +3 / -0

The people running those hospitals are greedy beyond belief. Look up how much money it costs to produce a standard bag of IV fluid and then look up how much the hospital charges for it.

The funding was always more important than saving lives.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

That doesn't really work after all you've had to say about it so far. I'm going to assume that you can't classify anything definitively beneficial about vaccine adjuvants.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

My post was this

What's your favorite vaccine adjuvant, and what are its side effects?

This is a question, not a statement. One cannot make a claim with a question. Your demand of proof is childish because you know you cannot provide proof of the alternative that is not subject to confirmation bias.

But if you want someone proving it, go on rumble.com and look up Dr. Paul Thomas

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't need to prove anything. In fact the onus of proof should be on you as champion of the idea. I just need to point out the overwhelming evidence of obfuscation: paid for studies that are neither double-blind nor randomized, FDA panels that that seek to ban effective medical treatments simply because they threaten the medical economic model, outright misinformation disseminated to the public about protective effectiveness, the steady rise of autism and autoimmune disorders that rise in lock step with the increase in childhood vaccinations, the fact that 97% SIDS happens within 3 days of vaccination.

You can shill for these amoral death merchants all you want, but you're convincing nobody of anything except possibly your own complicity.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can't see anything stopping him from putting them on a carriage to Canada. Do you?

4
SaltyJollyRoger 4 points ago +5 / -1

Lincoln was not the person portrayed in our history classes. Mary Todd's father was one of the biggest slave owners in Kentucky. When he inherited slaves from the Todd family he sold them instead of freeing them.

https://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/22/02/n25708571/lincolns-ownership-of-slaves-confirmed-in-new-book-by-kevin-orlin-johnson-from-pangaeus-press

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

This isn't about what Twitter did.

This is about gov't overreach and the receipts that prove it.

Twitter should be allowed to be as biased as it wants without punishment. But our gov't should not be allowed to tell any business in which direction they should be biased.

The reason nothing will happen is not because Twitter is a private company but because there is zero accountability for 95% of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats.

4
SaltyJollyRoger 4 points ago +4 / -0

One of the security guards at a factory I worked at in 2020 also did EMT training. When they restricted it to only online courses and zoom lectures he was obligated to finish training everyone that had signed up but refused to do it afterward.

He said it's basically impossible to properly train someone on life saving techniques over a zoom call.

3
SaltyJollyRoger 3 points ago +3 / -0

There's also an issue of airflow. The surgical rooms where those masks are worn have an increased airflow to provide enough oxygen through the mask.

Practically every job that started enforcing masks after 2019 did nothing to increase airflow in the areas where these masks were to be worn.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

I always thought it sounded a little too good to be true. But I never realized it had this many operational flaws.

But you're right. The only way a hydrogen hydrolysis engine makes sense is if you can compress and store the hydrogen because the engine will never be able to produce enough fuel on the fly.

And most people would probably fall at the first fence of using distilled water.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

I see. I've heard that electrolysis is wildly inefficient.

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

And that's what I think every time I see one of those kits. "There's no way this would actually work like it says."

0
SaltyJollyRoger 0 points ago +1 / -1

How does hydrolysis break the laws of energy conservation?

1
SaltyJollyRoger 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is the story I've heard:

Thee car ran on hydrolysis. It would use electricity to zap water into releases its molecular bonds and yielding oxygen and hydrogen. The particular trick he'd worked out was an electricity charged anode that would separate most of the oxygen from the hydrogen and producing a stable, combustible gas.

The trouble apparently came when he tried to demonstrate the car for investors. Oil company reps smeared his invention by telling foreign investors that they'd been lied to. "You were told this engine is proprietary and runs on new technology, but you were lied to. We've known about electrolysis for ages!" Is also possible the investors were threatened/bribed into silence.

After that the oil company (shell, texaco, bp? I don't know which one) basically bullied him into selling his patent for the engine to them. A few years later he apparently decided he wouldn't be silenced and contacted several journalists shortly before dying under suspicious circumstances.

view more: Next ›