Free just showed you otherwise. Why deny the obvious?The fact that the study is completely void of all foundational health or age of patients being compared one to the other , which you cannot dispute is the evidence .
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Free just showed you otherwise. Why deny the obvious?The fact that the study is completely void of all foundational health or age of patients being compared one to the other , which you cannot dispute is the evidence .
What biologicals does it list?It lists the ingredients. You just didn't read very carefully.
There isn't supposed to be DNA or biologicals in the vaccines, and moreover viruses in vaccines are plainly microorganism toxins. And since antibodies aren't used in the vax, I can only conclude that the goal is to reproduce antigens using bacteria.As you learned earlier, there are no organisms in mRNA vaccines.
Again, whatever.And viruses affecting bacteria are called "phages" not "viruses."
That's because viruses tend to be RNA and DNA, and bacteria are very susceptible to reproducing and making them.No. Viruses exploit specific features of the cell surface to enter a bacterium.
That's what your source said...Again, whatever.
You are quoting real life.That's what your source said...
"Views and opinions expressed on The Ben Armstrong Show are solely those of the host and do not necessarily represent those of The New American. TNA is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented."
Cry me a river. They are defending their 2nd amendment rights with such a disclaimer.They're peddling fairy tales and put that disclaimer at the bottom to avoid legal liability for lying. And it works because a lot of people lack the care to read carefully.
What does denying responsibility for peddling fake stories have to do with the 2nd Amendment?Cry me a river. They are defending their 2nd amendment rights with such a disclaimer.
What else would they be?That's because viruses tend to be RNA and DNA
They didn't say the stories are fake. It is a warning to understand them carefully.What does denying responsibility for peddling fake stories have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
Fair enough.What else would they be?
Oops, I meant the 1st amendment. erm, I apologize.What does denying responsibility for peddling fake stories have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
Although in the United States, truth is an absolute defense, the First Amendment provides no protection for libel or slander. Hence the guys peddling those stories put in a disclaimer to try to protect themselves from the consequences of lying about it.Oops, I meant the 1st amendment. erm, I apologize.
No, the disclaimer is in case they are mistaken. The liability is limited if the other party is guilty. No journalist or media corporation has sued the New American so far, because they know that they wouldn't win.Although in the United States, truth is an absolute defense, the First Amendment provides no protection for libel or slander. Hence the guys peddling those stories put in a disclaimer to try to protect themselves from the consequences of lying about it.
So you're peddling them because you don't care?I don't really care about trump, conspiracy theories, or anything.
For one thing it has authorized medical uses. Just not for COVID-19 infections. As you learned it doesn't work for that purpose.I see (and care) that there is a claim that Ivermectin was allowed in a hospital.
Barbarian is real life.You are quoting real life.
I can't help it, if you don't understand their sarcasm.So you're peddling them because you don't care?
You don't read the other side's sources; thus, you have no claim in this matter.A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate Rumble Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of right-wing propaganda and conspiracy theories and false information, use of poor sources, and a lack of transparency.
If you don't read the other side's sources, you miss stuff. But I do check on things like that. As you learned, Rumble was peddling fake stories; that's why they put up a disclaimer to protect themselves from the consequences of their behavior.You don't read the other side's sources;
Maybe you don't actually know what I know about immunology and infection...thus, you have no claim in this matter.
You don't read both sides.If you don't read the other side's sources, you miss stuff. But I do check on things like that. As you learned, Rumble was peddling fake stories; that's why they put up a disclaimer to protect themselves from the consequences of their behavior.
Or maybe you are not as smart as you think you are...Maybe you don't actually know what I know about immunology and infection...
Of course I do. How do you think I knew how unreliable Rumble is?You don't read both sides.
You're confusing intelligence and knowledge. How smart I might be, isn't what gives me the advantage here. It's a couple of decades studying and working in immunology that makes the difference.Or maybe you are not as smart as you think you are...