To: SoConPubbie
SoConPubbie wrote: “Get back to us when your preferred method(Clot-Shot “Vaccines”) of fixing/solving/curing this COVID-19 “crisis” is more than 50% effective at stopping the spread of the disease, keeping those “vaccinated” from getting the disease, and is no longer killing thousands of patients that have been “treated” with this Clot-Shot.”
What difference would that make? The anti-vaxxers were anti-vaxxers when the vaccines were 95% effective. There is no evidence that the vaccines have killed anyone. VARES isn’t proof. Correlation isn’t causation.
90 posted on
12/16/2021 2:45:14 PM PST by
DugwayDuke
(Most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.)
To: DugwayDuke
What difference would that make? The anti-vaxxers were anti-vaxxers when the vaccines were 95% effective. Haha. And when was that? In some kind of Derp State cartoon? You say 'correlation is not causation'? I say 'propaganda is not reality'. But you keep pissing down our backs and telling us its raining, Fauci-lite.

97 posted on
12/16/2021 3:08:45 PM PST by
bagster
("Even bad men love their mamas".)
To: DugwayDuke
There is no evidence that the vaccines have killed anyone. Well, other than the dead bodies of course.
#BluesClues

98 posted on
12/16/2021 3:12:31 PM PST by
bagster
("Even bad men love their mamas".)
To: DugwayDuke
What difference would that make? The anti-vaxxers were anti-vaxxers when the vaccines were 95% effective. There is no evidence that the vaccines have killed anyone. VARES isn’t proof. Correlation isn’t causation.
Another lie on your part.
They have never been 95% effective, never.
100 posted on
12/16/2021 3:15:53 PM PST by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson