Like I said, CNN anchor.
Where did I lie or misquote you? I made two exact quotes.
The answer to that, is in the PRECEDING COUPLE OF SENTENCES OF YOUR POST, where YOU cut-and-pasted how.
I explained how bioweapons might be designed and used, but not to kill people. You deliberately left all of that out, and misquoted me on purpose, like a CNN anchor.”
Deliberately leaving out something to give a false impression, IS a misquote.
Like if a movie reviewer says, "Seldom do I have a desire to smash the director in the mouth, and hit the producer in the nose."
And the advertisement for the movie quotes him as "A ...smash...hit"
You then double down and extend your lies:
You said “From the article: “Every single one of these doctors believe that these shots are NOT vaccines, but bioweapons designed to kill human beings.”
Then you said, "Clearly, from your exactly quoted statements, you do not believe the central premise of the original article."
You cut-and-pasted my own statement that it was a bioweapon (which agrees with the article) and a few sentences later have the GALL to say "clearly I don't agree with the central premise of the original article".
LYING. TROLL.
grey_whiskers wrote: “You cut-and-pasted my own statement that it was a bioweapon (which agrees with the article) and a few sentences later have the GALL to say “clearly I don’t agree with the central premise of the original article”.”
Simple yes or no answer. Do you agree with the “5 Doctors”: “Every single one of these doctors believe that these shots are NOT vaccines, but bioweapons designed to kill human beings.”, or not?
If you agree with the 5 Doctors, then you’ll need to explain how at least four ‘Big Pharma’ companies were coerced into incorporating a bioweapon designed to kill people in all of their vaccines.
If you agree with the 5 Doctors, then you’ll need to explain why at least four ‘Big Pharma’ decided that it was in their best interest to kill their customers.
If you disagree with the 5 Doctors, then you’ll have to agree that this article is typical anti-vaxxer propaganda.
grey_whiskers wrote: “You cut-and-pasted my own statement that it was a bioweapon (which agrees with the article) and a few sentences later have the GALL to say “clearly I don’t agree with the central premise of the original article”.”
If you want to play word games and insist that the vaccines are bioweapons that are not designed to kill but only to make people sick, then you still have to face these questions:
First, of all you have to admit that this article is misleading at the least and perhaps worse.
If you partially agree with the 5 Doctors (that these vaccines are bioweapons, but designed to sicken but not necessarily kill, then you’ll need to explain how at least four ‘Big Pharma’ companies were coerced into incorporating a bioweapon designed to sicken people in all of their vaccines.
If you partially agree with the 5 Doctors (that these vaccines are bioweapons, but designed to sicken but not necessarily kill, then you’ll need to explain how at least four ‘Big Pharma’ companies decided that it was in their best interest to sicken their customers.
There is one more hurdle which applies to either the case that the vaccines are bioweapons designed to kill or bioweapons designed to sicken those who receive those vaccines.
It is true, that there are limitations on the liability for ‘Big Pharma’. However, this limitation does not extend to intentionally inflicted harm. Nor, does this limit the criminal liability of ‘Big Pharma’. IOW, if ‘Big Pharma’ knew their product was a bioweapon designed to kill/sicken, then every employee privy to that information could be tried for attempted murder, assault, etc. Do you really believe that the CEO, etc., of ‘Big Pharma’ would take a chance on their prosecution for murder, assault, etc.?