1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't forget the rando that shot at kyle just outside the parking lot (captured on drone footage), which instigated the chase. Dude was never caught or charged.

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

his message is effectively stifled. should've gone to CM. also shouldn't have crapped on major base of support. nobody will be held accountable this way. seems like a poor strategy. maybe he turns it into a political run.

3
slag 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Blasts Scalise" has an entirely different meaning than the standard headline chow these days. Poor guy.

2
slag 2 points ago +2 / -0

why worship a golden calf after you were just lifted from slavery and witnessed the power of god first hand multiple times?

ignoring the lessons of Nuremberg is tragically not unprecedented.

2
slag 2 points ago +2 / -0

at combating spread

This is completely debunked. If doc can't accept that, then not worth it. Highest vaccinated regions having massive infections (Israel is poster child, places in States similar) while control groups in FL and others keep humming along. Pfizer/Moderna's own (limited) studies again never demonstrated efficacy at stopping spread (do not meet the legal definition of vaccines).

So now it's down to the jab being a therapuetic (which is exactly how the infowar has shifted - it'll keep you out of the hospital, etc.). So then if we're arguing amongst therapuetics, one has data and an actual safety profile with no relation to emergent adverse effects like myocarditis. The other is unknown at best, looking bad at worst. One has been used in multiple countries to induce an inversely correlated response with infection, hospitalization, and death. The other continues to require boosters and seems to correlate with increased infection despite exceeding herd immunity thresholds for actual vaccines.

As a doctor following a Hippocratic oath to do no harm, it is patently unethical to preclude a patient's right to try ivermectin (or as we are seeing, monoclonal antibody treatments) as a safer and more effective therapeutic than the mRNA jabs.

7
slag 7 points ago +7 / -0

In nature, bright and abnormal colors are used to signal "dangerous" and "toxic." So it is with the hair here.

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

I would press ivermectin research issue and monoclonals. Why not prescribe safe (40 years) therapuetics instead of experimental therapy? Why not support research? (NIH study on ivermectin prophylaxis and early treatment....from August 2021).

Also - since a doctor and all - ask where the long term studies are, and specifically the outcome of the 2x blind study control group for Pfizer. Some of their own work is damning enough for honest clinicians (e.g., they cut off the study after 6 months since they had EUA, and offered control group jab....so there's only actually 6 months total of data - we are in the middle of a long term study).

3
slag 3 points ago +3 / -0

They are still vacillating on policy. Have been through like 3 different ones so far, ranging from july to sept right. I opted to not return a dd-3150 (says in privacy act it's voluntary information, with caveats about implications). They have not put in place means for supplying exemption. Was supposed to get "counseled" (I'm not in active duty cuffs, so I will require anything of substance in writing for any litigation), but they punted on that because of lack of aforementioned guidance.

Supposedly Nov 22 is the date. Supposedly there's some form of testing requirement for categorized unvaccinated (or non attested or exempted). I have seen none of it materialize. Am planning for worst case scenario though. Pretty sure you have solid case if recovered (I follow barneslaw on twitter [no account, just web view] for updates on local and federal cases). Looks like you have muh science on your side; if you push back.

It's looking more and more like a giant shit test. To date, I have seen no adverse action. Unknown how active duty folks are faring though (no direct knowledge of people pushing back in my sphere, only broader service).

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah, I forgot the other hard lines of evidence (by doctors and actual experts) from the FDA advisory panel presentations.

FDA board testimony, preceding their 16-2 downvote:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/KwlZU198oGpT/

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

For various definitions of damning. Shit data, under reported, who knows. It's data you can actually fetch from supposed medical provider majority.

If you are looking for a gotcha, the jab is murder; good luck. If you are looking for a set of adverse reactions that correlate with the jab, then go sniff there. Other options include journal articles (JAMA and others) the discuss higher incidence of myocarditis and the like. If you want to out-research your dr buddy, you have to research. deconflict by age group as well, pre-existing conditions, etc.

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

go pull from vaers. it's public. api is confusing, but easy enough to get gross statistics.

3
slag 3 points ago +3 / -0

Looks like a lot of meds to stop taking. Except none of those meds were mandated, dick face [author].

by tholins
3
slag 3 points ago +3 / -0

lawyer up or get the discharge. can also find friendly senator or news people and talk. if writing is on the wall, you have nothing to lose.

106
slag 106 points ago +106 / -0

friend is an alcoholic. no need to sink with that stone

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

draw a dick on it and send it back. without exception

1
slag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Businesses need money to survive.

Unless the business is a front or a tax writeoff. Same reason white collar criminals from the elites use book deals to launder money (now it's also "art"). Pump money into a failing business, write off expenses, etc. Plenty of grift around. Not to mention not-official funding.

view more: Next ›