Yeah the whole disinformation and hype around the virus magically being airborne was ridiculous on its face.
It was really disgusting to see the government run with it, while claiming the conclusion that the virus came from a lab was fake news.

you argue against it when your so defiantly pro mask.
now lets discuss your unquestioning loyalty to peer-reviewed articles.
perhaps the greatest failure in peer-review
RNA world hypothesis, the darling of abiogenesis. when it was subject to the scientific process "repeatable" is failed miserably and the paper was retracted. but before it failed the scientific process it was "peer-reviewed". all peer-review is is some people agreeing on something and circle jerking it.

'RNA World' Paper Retracted
https://www.icr.org/article/rna-world-paper-retracted

proves masks causes poor air quality


This post was edited by TiStuff on Apr 27 2025 04:37pm

I'm not following. First you mention that I am king because I say I cite articles, something you just conjured out of your own ass to be honest, you continue to discuss things that make me believe, strongly, that you do not know what peer review is (and is not. Nowadays you can just ask chatgpt what the benefits of such things are you know lol, give it a try). The reproducibility or lack thereof is exactly why this happens and papers get retracted if found to be bogus. This is called scientific vigilance. One such very strong example of pharmacovigilance, in particular, is Pandemrix.

The worst example of an unrightfully published article, many doctors would argue, is the one where Softenon got through. I personally think the MMR and autism association paper in the lancet in the 70s did and is doing far more damage to public health.

Also, you should look up your own source. This is the second time you cite a source that is a very well known pseudoscientific platform. First, it was the swiss policy research, and this time the ICR.
Stick to proper channels if you want to talk science ._.

(btw the "citing makes you believe you are the king and that is why xyz is wrong!" kind of statement is a strawman fallacy ^^)

king of excuses and super heroic 20-40 citations no one ever heard.
throw shade on my link? did you see there were it said "RNA world hypothsis" "RETRACTED" because it was a chit "PEER-REVIEWED CIRCLE JERK PAPER".
head guy from RNA world hypotheses in a rare moment of honesty “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief” and “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.”
takes a special kind of head in azz to think citing peer-review ends a conversation especially 30-40 imaginary citations. wooweee tiger.

what was covid about and who made da money on da cuck masks
Newsom’s secretive $1-billion mask deal with Chinese automaker sparks bipartisan concerns
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-20/gavin-newsom-n95-masks-byd-chinese-company-california-legislature

Stopped reading after your second line, because you're text-screaming like a five-year-old again.
Would you like to try again, in a more sensible tone during pard discussions?

As for the first two lines: you so often refer back to old threads to make your point. Practice what you preach, find my posts in your own threads and see how I quoted medical articles -- in contrast to your attempt of a citation and attempt?
I hope you're going to learn to like the RNA world by the way, because I venture in 20-30 years most if not all our vaccines are going to be that kind of vaccine.

Five years have now passed since the final warning to the jews
https://x.com/nycmayor/status/1255309615883063297

let me answer that part
"RNA world hypothsis" "RETRACTED" because it was a chit "PEER-REVIEWED CIRCLE JERK PAPER
"RNA world hypothsis" "RETRACTED" because it was a chit "PEER-REVIEWED CIRCLE JERK PAPER
"RNA world hypothsis" "RETRACTED" because it was a chit "PEER-REVIEWED CIRCLE JERK PAPER
stop being a "peer-review" zombie and think for your self

not going on some wild goose chase tracing down 20-30 citations that only exist in your imagination

fun question to ask any medical person. "is it a good idea to put foreign genetics into your cells"?

its not "RNA" its "mRNA. just something else you got wrong like you didnt know what NIH meant

mRNA - the trump juice. brought to us by "warp speed" and all the democrats were like. hel no i aint gona take no trump product. REEEEEEE NOT ME RREEeeEe not meneither. then they stalled the product stole 2020 and claimed the 'vaccine as their own. turned out its really some kind of frankenstien cht product. lol really got to admire that trump plot armor.

cool vaccine song what it was really about
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8BKAmnJl24mY/

Mate, just the way you type in your "conversation". "REEEEEEE NOT ME RREEeeEe". Am I having a dialogue with a 14 year old? Pathetic, honestly, you can spout about how you left high school 10 years ago, it shows you never really left >.>

In any case, you still miss the point about what peer review is - and is not, and keep just reflecting the ball back to me. Kindly read up, or better yet simply ask chatgpt, about the benefits and shortcomings of peer-review and the process of scientific vigilance.
Since you are all about "Think for yourself", I assume you will have no problem with complying with this one for me, since it is meant to better refine your understanding of the scientific process.

Maybe if you repeat another 6 or 7 times that my asking you for a reference when you have given the name of an institution you clearly never read anything from rather than a reference is equal to me not knowing the name or purpose of an institution, I might believe you.
I know it's mRNA, mRNA is also RNA btw. Somewhat similar to saying that a cow is an animal, just not all animals are cows, etc.

you think its a good idea to put foreign genetics inside your cells?

I don't understand your inquiry. We've used viral vectors in vaccines plenty of times. Are you against mRNA vaccines, or anything that involves genes?
If your problem is with mRNA, mRNA does not reach the definition of "genetics" and therefore you do not have a problem with it.
If your problem is with integrating foreign genetic material into our own genetic material (which requires entry to the nucleus, not just the cell) -- then you must clearly also be against every viral vector stemmed vaccine and a strong opponent of crispr-cas9 technology. I can see the problem with the viral vectors, but you'll have to help me understand your problem with crispr-cas9.