grey_whiskers wrote: “The designation as a strawman argument is the refutation.”
Your argument is a strawman since you’ve provided no supporting evidence.
And, yes I spent many years developing missile/rocket systems for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. You got something against that?
YOu’re wrong.
A strawman is something unrelated to the meat of the discussion, a non-sequitur, something not actually put forth by the other side.
Your mention of Stew Peters and tying him to the (fictituous) “QAnon” — there is Q and there are Anons, there is no QAnon — as well as the misstatement that the jabs (which are not vaccines, the definition of vaccine was changed retroactively by the Pfauci-ites) “are derived from snake venom” (when in fact the actual assertion is that there are elements of the genetic sequence in the jabs which among other things, code for certain amino acid sequences found in snake venom)_to turn recipients into a “hybrid of Satan” (I never saw that suggested anywhere).
Not just lies on your part, but word salad on the order of Fetterman, Biden, or Kamala, and all with the hope of throwing anything at the wall and hoping you can scare people away from ever considering anything contrary to the narrative of “Safe and Effective and should be mandatory and injected over and over and over”.
And if you read the Q threads you troll, you will find at most very little mention of Yanowitz, and not reliance on those supposed findings: to the point that I don’t even remember seeing that name mentioned.
And again, utter dishonesty on your part, to try to pretend that the names you quote are the primary and representative sources of objections to the clot shots.
While you are VERY consistent, in seldom mentioning either the names or findings of real opposition to the clot shots mentioned on these threads.
You should have been banned for trolling long ago.