Whaa, here is my quote:
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Mostly she said the elderly were at tremendous risk, and vax rollout was not done in correct sequence. The elderly should have gotten it first. Not “only”. First.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
The only word was the only one that mattered. How is it a lie? The article uses that word, “only”. She did not say this. And I think you know it.
blah blah blah, she literally said the vaccine was never intended to prevent infection, the article in the post stated that. You asserted generically the post was not factual because she did not use the word “only.”
Now are you going to keep saying she did not state that, are you denying the vaccine was never created to prevent infection.
You do not get to establish a false premise, your premise is rejected, at issue is specifically, was the post accurate in stating Brix said the vaccine was never intended to prevent infection? Speak truth Worm-tongue or be silent, no one here has any patience left for your poison.
Yes or No?