I wish we didn't have to add "gate" on everything to get peoples' attention. #felony ElectionFraud" would be a better hashtag imo
Maybe it was a drug deal?
I read that in his voice
Makes sense. Redundancy.
It may be engineered to skip the first generation and target the genes of their offspring to not raise suspicion
2 BILION PEOPLE IN 1940. 7.8 BILLION TODAY. THIS VACCINE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IMPOTENT TO CONTROL POPULATION GROWTH.
100-46 = PERCENTAGE OF REAL VOTES THAT WENT TO TRUMP
That's a well done, and simple shadow effect
Please no false flag. Please no false flag. Please no false flag.
It creeps me out that our voting system is called "dominion"
Dude, you hit it right on the head
Trump wins florida
20% is a lot, makes me wonder is there is actual legislation that is being discussed to halt their publishing
Pictures of the democratic candidate's family will land you a long prison sentence, noted.
Covid is inducing anxiety in you. You are fine. Only 4 people die per day die in the entire state of NY from Covid, from Buffalo to Brooklyn.
A corona virus will not cause neurological effects.
0% of El Paso has wuflu rounding my the integer
What a cOVidiOT!! hurr durr hurr
Low probability; and if the climate change crowd truly believes the world is ending, wouldn't that risk be inconsequential in order to have clean sustainable energy?
10% of the globe is already powered by nuclear (used to be 20%)
Fusion is recreating the sun, would be badass. It should receive heavy R&D investment. Keeping a fusion reaction stable and cool is the tricky part.
This seems fair, it's 50% communist and 50% republican:
Communist: -Covid -Race -Climate
Trump: -Families -Leadership -National Security
Stock is UP 1.39% on Sherman Act legislation, looks like this filing is backed by air
A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817