Lying Weasel Fauci's Infatuation with Fame, While People were Dying
- Thread starter WCM
- Start date
AKA Matt Dillon...and not his only sock either.
MATT DILLON socks = Maicock, Tribble, WCM
What kind of lily-livered, spineless piece of shit hides behind an army of socks? Who, besides Trump, is so needy, insecure and weak to hide behind others, even socks??? It's impossible for Trump to admit failure or a mistake which proves he's weak. Every mistake he's made, he's blamed upon others such as the Reflecting Pool fiasco. Matt and his fellow MAGAts are just as weak and cowardly.
Why Some People Will Never Admit That They're Wrong
Psychological rigidity is not a sign of strength.
www.psychologytoday.com
Key points
- The typical response to discovering one is wrong is to admit it, either fully or partially.
- Some people refuse to admit they’re wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, due to a fragile ego.
- If one cannot psychologically handle being wrong, they may deny facts to defend their actions or beliefs.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
is a pedo ring running the country?AKA Matt Dillon...and not his only sock either.
MATT DILLON socks = Maicock, Tribble, WCM
What kind of lily-livered, spineless piece of shit hides behind an army of socks? Who, besides Trump, is so needy, insecure and weak to hide behind others, even socks??? It's impossible for Trump to admit failure or a mistake which proves he's weak. Every mistake he's made, he's blamed upon others such as the Reflecting Pool fiasco. Matt and his fellow MAGAts are just as weak and cowardly.
Why Some People Will Never Admit That They're Wrong
Psychological rigidity is not a sign of strength.Key points
- The typical response to discovering one is wrong is to admit it, either fully or partially.
- Some people refuse to admit they’re wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, due to a fragile ego.
- If one cannot psychologically handle being wrong, they may deny facts to defend their actions or beliefs.
View attachment 91321
Likely probably a pizza restaurant also.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Ditto for the command to use ventilators.....doctors were not allowed a choice....those who refused lost their ability to practice in hospitals......and it was immediately clear that they were killing people....almost no one survived it.
=============================================
Hospitals were ORDERED to pump patients full of toxic Remdesivir instead of safe, cheap IVERMECTIN — even though Fauci KNEW Ivermectin worked from the start.Why? Because Ivermectin would’ve ended the “emergency,” killed the vaccine money machine, and exposed the entire scam.They **knowingly murdered** countless Americans for profit.This wasn’t a mistake.This was mass murder by protocol.
View: https://x.com/ValerieAnne1970/status/2084972691975532607
=============================================
Hospitals were ORDERED to pump patients full of toxic Remdesivir instead of safe, cheap IVERMECTIN — even though Fauci KNEW Ivermectin worked from the start.Why? Because Ivermectin would’ve ended the “emergency,” killed the vaccine money machine, and exposed the entire scam.They **knowingly murdered** countless Americans for profit.This wasn’t a mistake.This was mass murder by protocol.
View: https://x.com/ValerieAnne1970/status/2084972691975532607
Re vents the command from on high was to be very aggressive in using them, to put people on them who given their situation would normally not be. Some reason was given which I forget but everyone on the front lines knew in a week that this was a bad idea, but hospital protocol gave them no discretion...they either followed protocol or else their career got immediately hammered. It took almost two months to end this, during which a lot of people died who should not have died.
It's worth noting that Google is part of TNI, and if you search up "ivermectin efficacy vs covid" to this day, the results say "zippo".
It's just the typical left4rd post, Jarod. A carbon copy of the drivel that you churn out: "Maga be bad dumdums.
"Can you point to one of your post that's more substantial than that? A post with a fact or an insight or even just a reasonable attempt at logic? Just anything aside from slander and drivel.
Trusted News Initiative.
BBC formed a group "to combat election disinformation" in 2019, along with Reuters, Associated Press, the European Broadcasting Union, CBC, WashPo, NYTimes, Twitter, FB, Google, Microsoft, YouTube and some others. Because that's what people do when they're telling the truth... they gather together to get their stories straight.
In 2020 they announced that they would be helping fight covid disinformation.
An example of "fighting covid disinformation" was backing the pangolin narrative 100% while social media took action against posts about the BSL4 lab:
- AI Overview
Yes, Facebook actively suppressed and penalized posts discussing the Wuhan lab-leak theory in 2020 using third-party fact-checkers, while Twitter did not issue a blanket ban on the theory itself, though it penalized specific accounts. [1, 2, 3]
Facebook- Content Demotion: Facebook's independent fact-checking partners labeled articles and user posts suggesting COVID-19 came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology as "false information". [1, 2]
- Distribution Penalties: Sharing these posts triggered automated warnings, blocked links, or severe drops in algorithmic visibility (functioning similarly to a shadow ban). [1, 2, 3]
- Policy Shift: Facebook officially ended its restriction and lifted the ban on posts claiming COVID-19 was man-made or lab-manufactured in May 2021. [1, 2]
Twitter- No Blanket Ban: Twitter did not implement a broad platform-wide ban or systematic shadow-ban policy specifically targeting the Wuhan lab-leak theory in 2020.
- Targeted Suspensions: Twitter took action against individual accounts for related infractions; for instance, it permanently suspended Zero Hedge in February 2020, citing violations of rules against targeted harassment and doxxing a Chinese researcher, rather than a ban on the lab theory itself. [1]
- Warning Labels: As 2020 progressed, Twitter chose to apply contextual warning labels to unverified rumors or disputed claims about the virus's origins rather than outright removing or banning the discussion
Remember back in 2020, when CNN et al were always saying "The Dem candidate said "blahblahblah" and their post received 112,000 likes and 14,000 re-tweets"? They used BS data from Twitter the same way that they use bogus polls to lend credibility to their false narratives.
They didn't stop citing the number of "likes and re-tweets" from X because Elon is a Nazi, they stopped citing it because it's no longer pure bullshit that's artificially created to back their narratives..
An example of "fighting election disinformation" was promoting "the letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials" as proof that the laptop was "Russian disinformation", while people were banned and shadow-banned for posting laptop info, and the NYPost was even banned from social media for saying things that the FBI knew to be true... The FBI had that laptop in their possession for 11 months at that point, so they know it was true, and Hunter has even acknowledged that all the laptop information was correct.
Isn't it just a tad weird that NYTimes was part of a group that kicked NYPost off of social media?
And... Burisma reeked to the high heavens... the Bidens were caught lying about it all multiple times, the prosecutor that was fired by Biden had acquired search warrants against Burisma's CEO, and "the new guy" that Biden bragged about selecting let Burisma's CEO off the hook and got all his assets unfrozen for him. All while Hunter set up phone conferences between Biden and the Burisma board, and Hunter was raking in millions of dollars for working in a country where he didn't speak the language and in a sector that he had no previous experience in.
Last edited:
@Hawkeye10
I would equate the CBC with regime media, yes. 100%.
They are openly funded by the Libs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and as an example:
I would equate the CBC with regime media, yes. 100%.
They are openly funded by the Libs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and as an example:
- the conservatives' "Duffygate scandal" was over $90k which wass ruled by our ethics commissioner to be a non-scandal, but the CBC treated it like WWII for 3 years, from 2012-2015, and even referred to our 2015 election as "a referendum on Duffygate".
- Trudeau's WE scandal was over $900,000,000 - literally ten thousand times as much money as Duffygate - and it was an actual scandal. The finance minister was forced to resign because his daughter worked full-time for WE, making $30k/yr, and Trudeau was exonerated despite the fact that WE had paid his mom almost $500,000 for speaking engagements and related expenses. That scandal became public news in late 2020, but CBC had stopped talking about it long before the next election, less than a year later. It wasn't even mentioned in the debates.
No.....they were very important to agenda.....scaring people into allowing the economy to be shut down, the Constitution openly defied, pump $7 trillion from America into the global economy to prop it up......and to prepare people for the digital chains that have been built for us....are almost ready.
Damocles was talking about the measles vaccine, and claiming its success had caused people not to get vaccines anymore. I disagreed. That had nothing to do with the Covid vaccine, and in fact was 20+ years before the Covid vaccine.
As for two vaccine courses being necessary, that is not unusual. Many vaccines require several courses.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study involved not treating or preventing syphilis. That is the opposite of vaccination.
The point is that massive support of the medical communities success is not one of the main reasons for avoiding vaccines.
Viruses mutate. That's why we need a new flu shot every year and why a person can have flu shots for 20 years but be susceptible to a new strain the following year.
Why American adults don't understand this helps point out why Trump loves the poorly educated: they are easier to manipulate with BS and fear-mongering.
It was much worse than that.
They didn't even tell them that they were diagnosed with syphillis, which meant that they would unwittingly be spreading it to other people.
Then they lied about what treatments they were performing on them, so that they thought that their ailments were being treated, and then they wouldn't go looking for diagnoses elsewhere:
- they were deceived by the PHS, who never informed them of their syphilis diagnosis[11] and who provided disguised placebos, ineffective treatments, and diagnostic procedures, such as lumbar punctures, as treatment for "bad blood"
So, just as the blacks of Tuskeegee were abused by the CDC and PHS, and the CDC and PHS are - rightfully - not trusted by the black community in that area, and beyond, everyone with a brain is now distrustful of the CDC. We know that they are shameless liars and profiteers.
The point of this whole SAD episode is that the word "vaccine" was used dishonestly, for profit.
Despite the new, watered-down version of the definition of that word, it used to include "conferred immunity to a pathogen". It was only changed to "it may confer a barely measurable level of protection against a pathogen" for the sake of the covid jabs.
And just remember that there are only two metrics by which the jabs were allegedly shown to be successful:
- tests done within the labs of the vax manufacturers themselves
- farcical "CFR" data, that only measures "outcomes vs positive tests", while knowing that the people who were in jobs where they were required to jab were also subjected to millions more covid tests than the unvaxed, and therefor had artificially inflated case-rates which were only minor in nature. FYI all those young, healthy people that were forced to take the jab for their work were also forced to take tests regularly, so they were going to be tested far more often than the unvaxed, and they were all guaranteed to survive.
FYI CFR is a valuable stat for infections like ebola, where every "case" equates to a person who stands a real risk of imminent death, but it's of no value at all for an infection like covid, which is often so minor that the infected persons are unaware that they're even carrying it, and where different groups of people are subjected to wildly varying numbers of tests.
Now the question that you have to ask yourself is: "Why did the people who got caught lying to us about everything else that was covid-related, rely exclusively upon bogus statistics to 'determine' vax efficacy"?