- Re: As Sinister Burt writes the inverse percentages are a significant part of the population
Posted by Sinister Burt
on November 12, 2021, 1:19 pm, in reply to "Re: As Sinister Burt writes the inverse percentages are a significant part of the population"
|
It's not gene manipulating is it - the genes aren't touched, as we established. At most it could be said to be ribosome manipulating or protein synthesis manipulating (you might think that's bad enough, but using wrong (though more emotive) terms won't persuade people who already know the correct ones). I've dealt with (dismissed) Yeadon and looked at Ionnanidis above (debunk those links if you like (without saying the majority of the world's doctors are stupid or lying preferably)). Montaigner and Robert Malone were both addressed well (i thought) in previous potholer54 videos I've posted. Here's some more links for you to debunk (or rather find links doing it for you like i did) - saying they're pilloried and excluded by the 'mainstream' is not enough on its own - you have to address the actual points of contention in my chosen articles (or explain why the points of contention are unfair). I'm still open to change my mind as always - but every time i've said that, i've found the supposed best evidence on the contrary side to be weak sauce/source - maybe i've just not asked the right people yet. Robert Malone https://forbetterscience.com/2021/10/04/how-dr-robert-malone-invented-antivaxxery/ Bhakdi https://www.thejournal.ie/claims-about-vaccines-working-with-respiratory-illness-5468645-Jun2021/ Luc Montaigner https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-health-coronavirus-idUSL2N2ND0WS |