Replies

Thanks. I think the same (they would publish in a peer-reviewed journal, not some conspiracy theory site).

At first, I could find nothing whacky about this doctor and he seemed to be just a regular normal doctor. Then I confess I got to wondering if they used a regular doctor’s name and specialty and just *claimed* he said such things. If caught, they could claim they talked to a “Dr. James Thorp” and assumed it was the real one, oops. Or they looked him up and assumed it was the one with that specialty, oops. They did not give his town, hospital where he pracices, other particulars, so ...

Maybe it’s catching, lol, this conspiracy minded stuff. On the other hand, I wouldn’t put anything past some of these grifters.

Thanks. I think the same (they would publish in a peer-reviewed journal, not some conspiracy theory site).

Let's hear it for peer-review!

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

I know: After all the problems with the original jabs, let's roll out a new set, despite the predictions of original antigenic sin (consistent with reports that most of the jabbed are coming down with COVID-1984 again and again, but not the unjabbed), and this time, do it without any human testing whatsoever, but only 8 mice!

Because SCIENCE!™

Get rekt, troll. See, we already know the government has been working with Social Media to censor things which go against the narrative (Lawsuit from various state attorneys general, referenced upthread).

We already know the Deep State likes to censor material (even in journals) contrary to the narrative (cf University of East Anglia / "hide the decline" emails etc., as well as modifying original data *and* attacking those opposed to the narrative, on a personal and professional basis.)

And we know, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, includes LGBTQ+ in addition to Climate Change, in addition to the jabs, as topics they get involved in, according to their website.

So your M.O. is already known.

Cat's out of the bag, Troll.

Thanks. I think the same (they would publish in a peer-reviewed journal, not some conspiracy theory site).

Times used the word 'conspiracy' in your latest propaganda attempt = 3. Well, if it works, right?

If caught, they could claim they talked to a “Dr. James Thorp” and assumed it was the real one, oops. Or they looked him up and assumed it was the one with that specialty, oops. They did not give his town, hospital where he pracices, other particulars, so ...

But we should listen to gas_dr and MomMD. Alrighty then.