Yeah Tuchodi is right, I demand to see the guests papers too.
The head of the Center for Disease Control is interviewed on TV and claims the vaccinated won’t catch the virus, I believe that, no papers needed, no science needed, the CDC can address the nation with claims that are not supported by science.
But a viral immunologist speaking without papers? Bullshit. I demand papers.
"[238] The court accepts that Dr. Bridle is an immunologist and vaccinologist by training and that he has expert knowledge in these fields, in particular regarding the theory and science behind vaccines. However, for the reasons below, the court does not accept that Dr. Bridle is qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children.
[239] Dr. Bridle is a researcher only. He is a faculty member at the Veterinary College at the University of Guelph’s Department of Pathobiology, where he conducts research on animals.
[240] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that he is not a medical doctor. He has never vaccinated a child, he has never treated a child or an adult suffering from a reaction to a vaccine, nor has he ever treated a child or an adult who is suffering from an infectious disease.
[241] Dr. Bridle agreed that he did not have any experience or involvement in the clinical trials of a Covid vaccine. He agreed that this is when the medical doctors become involved.
[242] Dr. Bridle’s acknowledged that his knowledge of the Covid vaccine is limited to his understanding of the science regarding how the vaccine works and how it should work, and his interpretation of the government data of the human experience of the vaccine.
[243] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that there were limitations on the data that he has seen and studied at the time of trial, including how the data had been presented. He acknowledged that there is no evidence of long-term risks, which are currently largely unknown. However, he points out that this is because there has not been sufficient clinical testing.
[244] Dr. Bridle has no real-world experience on how human beings are actually experiencing Covid-19, and reacting to the Covid vaccine, in contrast to Dr. Sharkawy.
[245] Dr. Bridle is not qualified to give opinion evidence on the risk and treatment of vaccine-induced myocarditis. He does not have the medical knowledge to do so. Dr. Sharkawy also testified on this issue and strongly refuted Dr. Bridle’s claims. The court prefers Dr. Sharkawy’s evidence, which is based on his direct experience in treating patients on the Covid ward at his hospital throughout the pandemic.
[246] It is Dr. Bridle’s opinion that the best immunity is natural immunity by contracting the disease, which he described the “gold standard”. He did not seem to appreciate or accept the serious risks associated with contracting the Covid infection, including death, nor did he seem to appreciate the risks and effects of contracting Covid multiple times, including the risk of developing long Covid syndrome, of which he appeared to be oblivious.
[247] In fairness to Dr. Bridle, he is an immunologist and a researcher not a medical doctor, so he has no direct experience or knowledge of how people experience the disease, in direct contrast to the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy. The court prefers the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy.
[248] One of Dr. Bridle’s main criticisms of the Covid vaccine was that it did not stop transmission or provide immunity, or that the duration of immunity was “ridiculously short” to use his words, requiring Canadians to have multiple doses.
[249] When asked by the court if he accepted that the Covid vaccine prevents serious illness and death, regardless of the shorter duration of immunity, Dr. Bridle would not acknowledge that receiving the vaccine prevented severe or serious illness and death. In fact, Dr. Bridle stated that vaccinated people are at greater risk than unvaccinated people given his interpretation of hospital admissions. He remained very firm in these views.
[250] Respectfully, this is so far removed from the mainstream and widely accepted views of the Canadian and international medical and scientific community that the court cannot accept Dr. Bridle’s evidence on the Covid vaccine as reliable.
[251] He did not dispute that regulatory bodies around the world such as the World Health Organization, the Canadian Pediatric Society, Health Canada, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) and the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child’s Health (UK) have supported and endorsed the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. He did not agree with them.
[252] Throughout his evidence, Dr. Bridle stated that he reviews data, he relies on data, and he interprets data. His views that all Canadian and international regulatory bodies are wrong suggests that his interpretation of the data is the correct interpretation against the vast and overwhelming majority of the national and international scientific community.
[253] Dr. Bridle also acknowledged that 88 of his colleagues (other faculty members at the University of Guelph) wrote an open letter to the university criticizing Dr. Bridle’s views on the vaccine. He did not state that there was any formal retraction of the letter, although he said that some of his colleagues were embarrassed about it.
[254] Dr. Bridle also testified that he is working on his own Covid vaccine, for which he has received government funding and is currently in the pre-clinical stage. The court was concerned that it is possible in Dr. Bridle’s interest, consciously or not, to advance views that discredit the existing mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines because he is working on a competing technology."
"[238] The court accepts that Dr. Bridle is an immunologist and vaccinologist by training and that he has expert knowledge in these fields, in particular regarding the theory and science behind vaccines. However, for the reasons below, the court does not accept that Dr. Bridle is qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children.
[239] Dr. Bridle is a researcher only. He is a faculty member at the Veterinary College at the University of Guelph’s Department of Pathobiology, where he conducts research on animals.
[240] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that he is not a medical doctor. He has never vaccinated a child, he has never treated a child or an adult suffering from a reaction to a vaccine, nor has he ever treated a child or an adult who is suffering from an infectious disease.
[241] Dr. Bridle agreed that he did not have any experience or involvement in the clinical trials of a Covid vaccine. He agreed that this is when the medical doctors become involved.
[242] Dr. Bridle’s acknowledged that his knowledge of the Covid vaccine is limited to his understanding of the science regarding how the vaccine works and how it should work, and his interpretation of the government data of the human experience of the vaccine.
[243] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that there were limitations on the data that he has seen and studied at the time of trial, including how the data had been presented. He acknowledged that there is no evidence of long-term risks, which are currently largely unknown. However, he points out that this is because there has not been sufficient clinical testing.
[244] Dr. Bridle has no real-world experience on how human beings are actually experiencing Covid-19, and reacting to the Covid vaccine, in contrast to Dr. Sharkawy.
[245] Dr. Bridle is not qualified to give opinion evidence on the risk and treatment of vaccine-induced myocarditis. He does not have the medical knowledge to do so. Dr. Sharkawy also testified on this issue and strongly refuted Dr. Bridle’s claims. The court prefers Dr. Sharkawy’s evidence, which is based on his direct experience in treating patients on the Covid ward at his hospital throughout the pandemic.
[246] It is Dr. Bridle’s opinion that the best immunity is natural immunity by contracting the disease, which he described the “gold standard”. He did not seem to appreciate or accept the serious risks associated with contracting the Covid infection, including death, nor did he seem to appreciate the risks and effects of contracting Covid multiple times, including the risk of developing long Covid syndrome, of which he appeared to be oblivious.
[247] In fairness to Dr. Bridle, he is an immunologist and a researcher not a medical doctor, so he has no direct experience or knowledge of how people experience the disease, in direct contrast to the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy. The court prefers the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy.
[248] One of Dr. Bridle’s main criticisms of the Covid vaccine was that it did not stop transmission or provide immunity, or that the duration of immunity was “ridiculously short” to use his words, requiring Canadians to have multiple doses.
[249] When asked by the court if he accepted that the Covid vaccine prevents serious illness and death, regardless of the shorter duration of immunity, Dr. Bridle would not acknowledge that receiving the vaccine prevented severe or serious illness and death. In fact, Dr. Bridle stated that vaccinated people are at greater risk than unvaccinated people given his interpretation of hospital admissions. He remained very firm in these views.
[250] Respectfully, this is so far removed from the mainstream and widely accepted views of the Canadian and international medical and scientific community that the court cannot accept Dr. Bridle’s evidence on the Covid vaccine as reliable.
[251] He did not dispute that regulatory bodies around the world such as the World Health Organization, the Canadian Pediatric Society, Health Canada, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) and the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child’s Health (UK) have supported and endorsed the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. He did not agree with them.
[252] Throughout his evidence, Dr. Bridle stated that he reviews data, he relies on data, and he interprets data. His views that all Canadian and international regulatory bodies are wrong suggests that his interpretation of the data is the correct interpretation against the vast and overwhelming majority of the national and international scientific community.
[253] Dr. Bridle also acknowledged that 88 of his colleagues (other faculty members at the University of Guelph) wrote an open letter to the university criticizing Dr. Bridle’s views on the vaccine. He did not state that there was any formal retraction of the letter, although he said that some of his colleagues were embarrassed about it.
[254] Dr. Bridle also testified that he is working on his own Covid vaccine, for which he has received government funding and is currently in the pre-clinical stage. The court was concerned that it is possible in Dr. Bridle’s interest, consciously or not, to advance views that discredit the existing mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines because he is working on a competing technology."
Yeah Tuchodi is right, I demand to see the guests papers too.
The head of the Center for Disease Control is interviewed on TV and claims the vaccinated won’t catch the virus, I believe that, no papers needed, no science needed, the CDC can address the nation with claims that are not supported by science.
But a viral immunologist speaking without papers? Bullshit. I demand papers.
It's AIDS!
https://t.co/XkQC8gZGvv
Covid vaccines cause Anemia
https://www.cureus.com/articles/58777-a-case-of-autoimmune-hemolytic-anemia-following-covid-19-messenger-ribonucleic-acid-vaccination
Covid vaccines cause Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35103106/
Covid vaccines cause Autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35978510/
Covid vaccines cause Acute kidney disease and nephropathy
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35920797/
**Covid vaccines cause Autoimmune thyroiditis **
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35680353/
Covid vaccines cause Immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=immune+thrombocytopenia+vaccine
Covid vaccines cause Cerebral venous thrombosis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34535076/
Moderna Covid vaccines cause Acute Transverse Myelitis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579245/
Covid Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34365148/
Covid vaccines cause Interstitial lung disease
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34510014/
Covid vaccines cause Transient lymphocytopenia (actual immunosuppression) and herpes zoster.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34428545/
As a fat 70 yr old and as an uneducated mechanic it makes sense that you think
Autoimmune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is a “side effect” to a flu shot.
Your opinion as a mechanic is noted. Your devastating stupidity is on full display here for all to see.
Thank you.
We don’t need to know the long term effects of an injectable drug.
The kids and adults who are getting injected don’t need to know either.
Doctors asking for long term safety data should be fired.
Spoofing someone else's account is A-OK on omegacanada.win folks.
Classy.
The real account, joined 2 years ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/Urallfucked
This shitpost account - go ahead, click on it up there - joined 77 days ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/UraIIfucked/
Proud of yourself for finding 11 adverse events?
The Pfizer document that your fellow-travelers like to link to lists thousands. Six pages of names of conditions, single spaced.
The question they refuse to address, folks, is this: how much damage is done by the vaccines compared to that done by the virus?
We know there are almost 7 million dead from the virus https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/. Where are their numbers for covid vaccine deaths?
Do covid vaccine deaths occur? It looks like it. One here, another there.
There's a global pandemic. People are going to die.
In the US: "In November 2022, people ages 5 years and older and vaccinated with an updated (bivalent) booster had:
12.7X lower risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people, and
2.4X lower risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to vaccinated people without the (bivalent) booster." https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
I'm not seeing any science to read. Just a bunch of talking heads.
Real scientists present papers when they're doing science. Did Thompson or her guests forget to include the papers?
Tuchidiot, the uneducated fat mechanic, doesn’t agree with the professor, Dr Bridle.
Tuchodi, a fat uneducated mechanic, thinks it matters that he doesn’t agree with the immunologists expert’s medical opinion.
Yeah Tuchodi is right, I demand to see the guests papers too.
The head of the Center for Disease Control is interviewed on TV and claims the vaccinated won’t catch the virus, I believe that, no papers needed, no science needed, the CDC can address the nation with claims that are not supported by science.
But a viral immunologist speaking without papers? Bullshit. I demand papers.
Fuck Trump
If the courts don't recognize that why should we folks?
Dr. Bridle is working on his own vaccine - see below
Anyway, he got minimal respect when he tried to present himself as an expert witness: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2022/2022oncj500/2022oncj500.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAVR3VlbHBoICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2&utm_source=guelphtoday.com&utm_campaign=guelphtoday.com%3A%20outbound&utm_medium=referral
"[238] The court accepts that Dr. Bridle is an immunologist and vaccinologist by training and that he has expert knowledge in these fields, in particular regarding the theory and science behind vaccines. However, for the reasons below, the court does not accept that Dr. Bridle is qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children.
[239] Dr. Bridle is a researcher only. He is a faculty member at the Veterinary College at the University of Guelph’s Department of Pathobiology, where he conducts research on animals.
[240] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that he is not a medical doctor. He has never vaccinated a child, he has never treated a child or an adult suffering from a reaction to a vaccine, nor has he ever treated a child or an adult who is suffering from an infectious disease.
[241] Dr. Bridle agreed that he did not have any experience or involvement in the clinical trials of a Covid vaccine. He agreed that this is when the medical doctors become involved.
[242] Dr. Bridle’s acknowledged that his knowledge of the Covid vaccine is limited to his understanding of the science regarding how the vaccine works and how it should work, and his interpretation of the government data of the human experience of the vaccine.
[243] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that there were limitations on the data that he has seen and studied at the time of trial, including how the data had been presented. He acknowledged that there is no evidence of long-term risks, which are currently largely unknown. However, he points out that this is because there has not been sufficient clinical testing.
[244] Dr. Bridle has no real-world experience on how human beings are actually experiencing Covid-19, and reacting to the Covid vaccine, in contrast to Dr. Sharkawy.
[245] Dr. Bridle is not qualified to give opinion evidence on the risk and treatment of vaccine-induced myocarditis. He does not have the medical knowledge to do so. Dr. Sharkawy also testified on this issue and strongly refuted Dr. Bridle’s claims. The court prefers Dr. Sharkawy’s evidence, which is based on his direct experience in treating patients on the Covid ward at his hospital throughout the pandemic.
[246] It is Dr. Bridle’s opinion that the best immunity is natural immunity by contracting the disease, which he described the “gold standard”. He did not seem to appreciate or accept the serious risks associated with contracting the Covid infection, including death, nor did he seem to appreciate the risks and effects of contracting Covid multiple times, including the risk of developing long Covid syndrome, of which he appeared to be oblivious.
[247] In fairness to Dr. Bridle, he is an immunologist and a researcher not a medical doctor, so he has no direct experience or knowledge of how people experience the disease, in direct contrast to the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy. The court prefers the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy.
[248] One of Dr. Bridle’s main criticisms of the Covid vaccine was that it did not stop transmission or provide immunity, or that the duration of immunity was “ridiculously short” to use his words, requiring Canadians to have multiple doses.
[249] When asked by the court if he accepted that the Covid vaccine prevents serious illness and death, regardless of the shorter duration of immunity, Dr. Bridle would not acknowledge that receiving the vaccine prevented severe or serious illness and death. In fact, Dr. Bridle stated that vaccinated people are at greater risk than unvaccinated people given his interpretation of hospital admissions. He remained very firm in these views.
[250] Respectfully, this is so far removed from the mainstream and widely accepted views of the Canadian and international medical and scientific community that the court cannot accept Dr. Bridle’s evidence on the Covid vaccine as reliable.
[251] He did not dispute that regulatory bodies around the world such as the World Health Organization, the Canadian Pediatric Society, Health Canada, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) and the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child’s Health (UK) have supported and endorsed the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. He did not agree with them.
[252] Throughout his evidence, Dr. Bridle stated that he reviews data, he relies on data, and he interprets data. His views that all Canadian and international regulatory bodies are wrong suggests that his interpretation of the data is the correct interpretation against the vast and overwhelming majority of the national and international scientific community.
[253] Dr. Bridle also acknowledged that 88 of his colleagues (other faculty members at the University of Guelph) wrote an open letter to the university criticizing Dr. Bridle’s views on the vaccine. He did not state that there was any formal retraction of the letter, although he said that some of his colleagues were embarrassed about it.
[254] Dr. Bridle also testified that he is working on his own Covid vaccine, for which he has received government funding and is currently in the pre-clinical stage. The court was concerned that it is possible in Dr. Bridle’s interest, consciously or not, to advance views that discredit the existing mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines because he is working on a competing technology."
Another support-free set of opinions from Bullshityouharder folks.
This is the person who thinks
and who refuses to look at anything that says it isn't so: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=people+who+regret+not+getting+the+vaccine&ia=web
I’m ok with dying suddenly and I accept covid vaccine death.
Catching severe covid infections and then dying suddenly just means the 4 vaccines are working.
I hate Trump.
Spoofing someone else's account is A-OK on omegacanada.win folks.
Classy.
The real account, joined 2 years ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/Urallfucked
This shitpost account - go ahead, click on it up there - joined 77 days ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/UraIIfucked/
Dr. Bridle is working on his own vaccine. I wonder if that's why he's bad-mouthing the others.
Anyway, he got minimal respect when he tried to present himself as an expert witness: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2022/2022oncj500/2022oncj500.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAVR3VlbHBoICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2&utm_source=guelphtoday.com&utm_campaign=guelphtoday.com%3A%20outbound&utm_medium=referral
"[238] The court accepts that Dr. Bridle is an immunologist and vaccinologist by training and that he has expert knowledge in these fields, in particular regarding the theory and science behind vaccines. However, for the reasons below, the court does not accept that Dr. Bridle is qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children.
[239] Dr. Bridle is a researcher only. He is a faculty member at the Veterinary College at the University of Guelph’s Department of Pathobiology, where he conducts research on animals.
[240] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that he is not a medical doctor. He has never vaccinated a child, he has never treated a child or an adult suffering from a reaction to a vaccine, nor has he ever treated a child or an adult who is suffering from an infectious disease.
[241] Dr. Bridle agreed that he did not have any experience or involvement in the clinical trials of a Covid vaccine. He agreed that this is when the medical doctors become involved.
[242] Dr. Bridle’s acknowledged that his knowledge of the Covid vaccine is limited to his understanding of the science regarding how the vaccine works and how it should work, and his interpretation of the government data of the human experience of the vaccine.
[243] Dr. Bridle acknowledged that there were limitations on the data that he has seen and studied at the time of trial, including how the data had been presented. He acknowledged that there is no evidence of long-term risks, which are currently largely unknown. However, he points out that this is because there has not been sufficient clinical testing.
[244] Dr. Bridle has no real-world experience on how human beings are actually experiencing Covid-19, and reacting to the Covid vaccine, in contrast to Dr. Sharkawy.
[245] Dr. Bridle is not qualified to give opinion evidence on the risk and treatment of vaccine-induced myocarditis. He does not have the medical knowledge to do so. Dr. Sharkawy also testified on this issue and strongly refuted Dr. Bridle’s claims. The court prefers Dr. Sharkawy’s evidence, which is based on his direct experience in treating patients on the Covid ward at his hospital throughout the pandemic.
[246] It is Dr. Bridle’s opinion that the best immunity is natural immunity by contracting the disease, which he described the “gold standard”. He did not seem to appreciate or accept the serious risks associated with contracting the Covid infection, including death, nor did he seem to appreciate the risks and effects of contracting Covid multiple times, including the risk of developing long Covid syndrome, of which he appeared to be oblivious.
[247] In fairness to Dr. Bridle, he is an immunologist and a researcher not a medical doctor, so he has no direct experience or knowledge of how people experience the disease, in direct contrast to the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy. The court prefers the evidence of Dr. Sharkawy.
[248] One of Dr. Bridle’s main criticisms of the Covid vaccine was that it did not stop transmission or provide immunity, or that the duration of immunity was “ridiculously short” to use his words, requiring Canadians to have multiple doses.
[249] When asked by the court if he accepted that the Covid vaccine prevents serious illness and death, regardless of the shorter duration of immunity, Dr. Bridle would not acknowledge that receiving the vaccine prevented severe or serious illness and death. In fact, Dr. Bridle stated that vaccinated people are at greater risk than unvaccinated people given his interpretation of hospital admissions. He remained very firm in these views.
[250] Respectfully, this is so far removed from the mainstream and widely accepted views of the Canadian and international medical and scientific community that the court cannot accept Dr. Bridle’s evidence on the Covid vaccine as reliable.
[251] He did not dispute that regulatory bodies around the world such as the World Health Organization, the Canadian Pediatric Society, Health Canada, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) and the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child’s Health (UK) have supported and endorsed the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. He did not agree with them.
[252] Throughout his evidence, Dr. Bridle stated that he reviews data, he relies on data, and he interprets data. His views that all Canadian and international regulatory bodies are wrong suggests that his interpretation of the data is the correct interpretation against the vast and overwhelming majority of the national and international scientific community.
[253] Dr. Bridle also acknowledged that 88 of his colleagues (other faculty members at the University of Guelph) wrote an open letter to the university criticizing Dr. Bridle’s views on the vaccine. He did not state that there was any formal retraction of the letter, although he said that some of his colleagues were embarrassed about it.
[254] Dr. Bridle also testified that he is working on his own Covid vaccine, for which he has received government funding and is currently in the pre-clinical stage. The court was concerned that it is possible in Dr. Bridle’s interest, consciously or not, to advance views that discredit the existing mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines because he is working on a competing technology."
She should talk folks. A person who says ...
... is simply refusing to look (https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=people+who+regret+not+getting+the+vaccine&ia=web)
They're shutting out the real world and living in a fantasy.
Yeah Tuchodi is right, I demand to see the guests papers too.
The head of the Center for Disease Control is interviewed on TV and claims the vaccinated won’t catch the virus, I believe that, no papers needed, no science needed, the CDC can address the nation with claims that are not supported by science.
But a viral immunologist speaking without papers? Bullshit. I demand papers.
Fuck Trump
Spoofing someone else's account is free speech on omegacanada.win folks.
Classy.
The real account, joined 2 years ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/Urallfucked
This shitpost account - go ahead, click on it up there - joined 77 days ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/UraIIfucked/
Getting Covid right after the vaccine is a sign that it’s working.
Spoofing someone else's account is free speech on omegacanada.win folks.
Classy.
The real account, joined 2 years ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/Urallfucked
This shitpost account - go ahead, click on it up there - joined 78 days ago: https://omegacanada.win/u/UraIIfucked/
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/10/covid-republican-democrat-deaths/
All Liberals need to get double boosted three time. Not once or twice or three or four times.
Get 6 shots. That will show Trump.
Fuck Trump. Inject yourself with mRNA.