×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules
20
9 comments block


[ - ] uvulectomy 3 points 8 monthsSep 5, 2023 12:09:45 ago (+3/-0)

Archive Link (with highlighting, even) straight from the horse's mouth, instead of being a "just trust me bro" screenshot fag.

[ - ] Niggly_Puff 4 points 8 monthsSep 5, 2023 13:04:02 ago (+4/-0)

But the ministry of truth says it's false you conspiracy theorist!! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-risk-assessment-summary-covid-vaccine/

Seriously.. look at their reasoning for labelling it false. Absolute kikes.

[ - ] uvulectomy 2 points 8 monthsSep 5, 2023 15:14:03 ago (+2/-0)

It says it MAY cause an increased risk for the jabbed, not that it WILL cause an increased risk, therefore we've rated this false. Meanwhile, Trump's statement that he wanted to temporarily halt travel from countries with a high risk of terrorism means he wanted to execute all muslims in the streets, you bigots.

Sounds about like (((Snopes))) alright. But what do you expect from a company founded by a fat cat lady and her fat soyboy husband who spent company money on hookers.

[ - ] Inward 0 points 8 monthsSep 6, 2023 05:56:31 ago (+0/-0)

They say it is false but then go on to support that it is true only highlighting the word "may." They are gaslighting. They must be hoping that people will see the "False" designation and move on.

[ - ] KyleIsThisTall 1 point 8 monthsSep 5, 2023 21:46:16 ago (+1/-0)

it's the common cold

they injections were poison to destroy immune systems

[ - ] Osmanthus 1 point 8 monthsSep 5, 2023 16:51:38 ago (+1/-0)

Actual snopes explanation is:
"The sentence about the new variant being "more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines" did not compare vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated. The summary stated that those who had previously been infected or vaccinated may be more susceptible to this variant compared to previous variants."

This could very well be what they intended to mean with that sentence.
But that's is not what it says and we are left to parse the meaning.

Is it an honest linguistic ambiguity, or is a slimy way to admit the truth while pushing another vaccine to the trusting who will interpret it in a less sinister way?

[ - ] TheYiddler 2 points 8 monthsSep 6, 2023 04:30:44 ago (+2/-0)

The gullible don't read. Official CDC correspondence is only ever filtered through the media for NPCs.

[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker [op] 0 points 8 monthsSep 5, 2023 17:09:41 ago (+0/-0)

We know it's all bullshit, so the question really is why did the CDC admit that the vaccines aren't working? Is it just that it's time for the new lockdowns, so they have to admit that vaccines aren't enough?

[ - ] kammmmak 0 points 8 monthsSep 5, 2023 15:42:57 ago (+0/-0)

"from" 😜😝