You cub stopped your mother’s filthy cunt…That’s what you curb stomped
A. One was outdated
B. The other says “might” and is in contrast with articles that I’ve seen Storm and I believe GSC have posted elsewhere on this site
The words of someone who’s clearly lost an argument.
I’ve posted proof. And aside from you posting no proof (something you’ve admitted you dont do), you point to “proof” that GSC and QuackFront (spoiler alert - QuackFront doesn’t post anything that’s in the realm of reality) may or may not have posted and state that I’m wrong, based on that “proof” - that they may or may not have posted - because you like those words better.
You’ve been on a long losing streak Qkeeter. Probably best to sit the next few plays out.
You’ve posted, well, nothing next to your go-to word.
You posted an outdated article…And an article with MIGHT proof
nd aside from you posting no proof (something you’ve admitted you dont do), you point to “proof” that GSC and QuackFront (spoiler alert - QuackFront doesn’t post anything that’s in the realm of reality) may or may not have posted and state that I’m wrong, based on that “proof”
Said it conflicts/contrasts, not wrong…Just said it doesn’t prove anything…
Not everything Storm posts is QAnon…Some is very good(although it gets ridiculously repetitive) …Some I simply don’t click on because I believe it’s way too far out there, intentionally vague yada yada yada…You go stone crickets when everyone here posts real facts or at least real questions that need asked and answered and points of obvious conflict…But then act like we are supposed to bow down to some “might” article.
Although I must say…I have read much much more convincing than what you posted in the “might” article.
Like I said…Conflicting evidence. I just googled one. There are others on this message board and all over the internet. Also, please note your study is not yet peer reviewed.
But you Mr. Ivermectin-hasn’t-been-tested, vetted, etc…Submits a study that hasn’t yet been peer reviewed? Fuckin hypocrite
I will admit and tip the had that your study is much larger. But even then much of the commentary and explanations in the article simply focus on that you may have the virus for a shorter period of time. So if you wanna say in that manner it may give you less of a window? OK I’ll tip my hat as we continue to learn more and even if you turn out to be right.
My point of the whole thing is it isn’t doing enough against transmission, viruses mutate, the protection wastes, etc…etc…to justify you being worried about someone else’s status. You got it, and it looks like it is capable of helping you fight it. Even if you believe it is doing SOMETHING against prevention, it isn’t enough, and the virus outside of risk groups (who can go get vax if they want it) isn’t serious enough for us to worry about.
And you ignore every other article we’ve posted that doesn’t fit your extreme meltdown narrative
Gotcha.
No other article matters…Crickets…Let’s find the one that satisfies my fear and meltdown even if explains a study that isn’t peer reviewed and shows a little bit of prevention against a disease that has a minuscule chance of killing me.
You really are a fucking cunt…How do you live your life like a bratty little cunt like this?
“….every article WE’VE” posted….”??? You don’t post any articles! You admitted you don’t even do that!
Dude you just admitted you were wrong. Stop trying to save face and take the L. You should be used to it by now.
This “bratty little cunt” is the happiest he’s ever been. There’s literally not a single thing I would change.
So you can keep calling me names and try to insult me as a way of trying to ignore the fact that a) you lost and b) you admitted you lost. Doesn’t bother me in the least.
The next time you want to try and prove your point, how about try doing it yourself vs having other posters do it for you. Are there exceptions to the general rule? Absolutely. But look at the science and assess your risk.
I thought the vaccine mitigated the symptoms but didn’t help much in the spread. Seems like the data says vaccines are the way to go, but if you don’t want em’, fuck it…don’t get em’. The less traffic the better
You are 0-for-life against me…Including when I showed you how to do basic math.
My study (and others posted on this board) shows you are wrong…Yours show I am wrong…My “wrong” is a very small difference and doesn’t effect you in anyway if you don’t have delusional covid fear. I’m cool with going separate ways…And going with he tiebreaker of common sense and 99.7% and the fact that you have a vaccine that will help you if you do contract covid. t’s you delusional, sanctimonious meltdown fucks who can’t accept that.
I don’t have to have others post it for me…I’m just not re-posting months and years worth of shit that has already been posted. I don’t have the time…It’s on this message board, look it up yourself cunt.
Referring to their posts isn’t needing them to post it for me.
No one on this board posted more covid data than me the last 18 months…NO ONE…Just because I’ve slowed down in recent months doesn’t change that. You ignore every bit of data that doesn’t dive with an extremely reckless, meltdown based, ZeroCovid/Force a vaccine on everyone approach.
…….still talking shit even after admitting on this thread that you are wrong.
The Bloomberg article shows you were wrong…So you are doing the same thing cunt
It kind of is. You’re relying on them to do the research because you’re unwilling to do it yourself.
This just goes back to the point where you don’t read. I’ve supported opening back up for the longest. I don’t want my kids wearing masks. The vaccines are available. I’ve gone to every Canes game but 1 so far this season (no mask). You want to paint me as something I’m not - that’s fine - I’ve proven otherwise.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone admit losing and then try to claim victory - all in the same thread.
You specifically said yourself you don’t post sources. Why say you don’t do something if it’s not true, idiot? Or you admitted that you lied. Which is it?
This is what you said:
Which is as admission that this study is a lot more reliable.