Covid-19 related debates (argue in this thread only)

[Rodzilla]

you people have got the blinkers on, hacky mcaxe even tried to make a case that counting the study outcomes the wrong way around wouldn't effect the results in any way lol

the 2 nutjobs who will say anything

 

[DinkumDog]

or maybe because they did change the definition and im telling the truth, you ask why he is lying maybe it has something to do with owning pfizer stock

Now now, don’t be salty because you didn’t get in at the right price .

 

[DinkumDog]

i just showed you where they changed the definition of vaccine, apology required within 24 hours

No and no .

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Agree except for the feel sorry bit.
Wherever the line is it was crossed long ago and would test the most sympathetic of people.

I blocked him so I don't need to see his crap any more. Is he still whining about the fact that he doesn't understand the definition of immunity?

 

[DinkumDog]

I blocked him so I don't need to see his crap any more. Is he still whining about the fact that he doesn't understand the definition of immunity?

The usual: Ivermectin blah, vaccine definition blah, Gates blah, Money grab blah. Same shit different day.

 

[Rodzilla]

No and no .

they changed the definition


Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

to

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

 

[Rodzilla]

dinkum dog is trying to say that he reads both versions and doesnt see any differences, he must have vision impairment

 

[Rodzilla]

most of the things are consistent with a global emergency epidemic, for example if they are strongly bullying people to get the vaccine then it can be because the vaccines work and people need to be protected etc

but the things that are not consistent with the global emergency epidemic situation is where all the clues are, for example seeing there is promise in ivermectin as a prevention and treatment but writing it off without further studies and excluding prevention studies from taking place

when in 10% first dose india, the covid delta variation falls off a cliff in cases and it doesn't even get reported except to deny that ivermectin was the reason, thats also inconsistent

 

[DinkumDog]

I changed the definition

Rodzilla: A poster that stimulates a person’s upchuck reflex. Currently, the only known method for protecting the person from that disease is blocking this user. Rodzilla is usually administered through nauseating forum posts, but probably bangs on about the same shit in real life.

to

Rodzilla: A poster that most other posters are blocking. This is akin to a vaccine as it distributes ‘Anti-Rodies’, which block crap declared as fact, don’t subject the victim to repetitive posts ranging from simply wrong to downright lunacy whilst suggesting others are mentally inferior. Currently, Anti-Rodies are becoming effective in the fight against viruses infecting the forum.

Hopefully the above is clear .

 

[DinkumDog]

dinkum dog is trying to say that he reads both versions and doesnt see any differences, he must have vision impairment

Yes, along with mental impairment I am visually challenged. The reason? You remain unblocked.

 

[Rodzilla]

Hopefully the above is clear .

you are in denial, did they change the definition yes or no?

 

[Rodzilla]

when you people read dinkum dogs posts, i hope you keep in mind this is a pfizer shareholder

maybe the money is the reason he can't see the difference

 

[DinkumDog]

you are in denial, did they change the definition yes or no?

You changed it.
You post text without links or actual evidence and expect people to believe the same source deliberately changed the definition and did so under pressure from big Pharma or governments or the Lizard people or - someone. OK.

 

[DinkumDog]

when you people read rodzilla’s posts, i hope you keep in mind this is a trolling lunatic.

maybe the lunacy is the reason he can't see the difference

.

 

[CrittaMagic69]

 

[Rodzilla]

You changed it.
You post text without links or actual evidence and expect people to believe the same source deliberately changed the definition and did so under pressure from big Pharma or governments or the Lizard people or - someone. OK.

my post had links but if you are too lazy to go back then here they are again

Immunization Basics | CDC (archive.org)

Immunization Basics | CDC (archive.org)

yes i expect people to believe that something created pressure for them to change it

for example they desperately wanted to retain the title of vaccine because people generally understand vaccines to work, but their vaccine doesn't protect people like it describes in the old definition so they changed it to something very generic and now if something improves immune response by 0.23% then it could be named a vaccine

 

[Rodzilla]

so now the correct answer from dinkum dog is that i was correct and they changed the definition

don't delete your posts again and still act like im the idiot, you've done that too many times already

 

[Rodzilla]

also someone please inform hacky that i was correct again

 

[DinkumDog]

my post had links but if you are too lazy to go back then here they are again

Immunization Basics | CDC (archive.org)

Immunization Basics | CDC (archive.org)

yes i expect people to believe that something created pressure for them to change it

for example they desperately wanted to retain the title of vaccine because people generally understand vaccines to work, but their vaccine doesn't protect people like it describes in the old definition so they changed it to something very generic and now if something improves immune response by 0.23% then it could be named a vaccine

How is that ‘evidence’? The first one said it was modified in May 2018 (pre-Covid) and the second one in September 2021. You don’t think lessons have been learned along the way by ALL, including the CDC?

But because you’re armed with a web archive, you believe because some wording changed it’s evidence of some sort of scandalous cover-up and attempt to bury the truth that Ivermectin is the real cure.

That’s the longest bow I’ve seen you draw and that’s not an insignificant statement.

 

[DinkumDog]

so now the correct answer from dinkum dog is that i was correct and they changed the definition

Nope

don't delete your posts again and still act like im the idiot, you've done that too many times already

Ah, your go to when you’ve got nothing else
(which is frequent) .