Medical liability of doctors who would be involved in anti-Covid vaccination

[Janic]

??
you did not understand anything what I said what, and suddenly you answer anything, as usual.

it's not an answer, but a remark, a little bit of anything, it's like taking a boat bar and pretending it's THE boat!

I just asked if she had taken her numbers from any reports published by Pfizer, that's all.

and you would have avoided this question by viewing, ALL of the video. So you ask a lot of shitty questions in your habit.

[ABC2019]

??
you did not understand anything what I said what, and suddenly you answer anything, as usual.

it's not an answer, but a remark, a little bit of anything, it's like taking a boat bar and pretending it's THE boat!

I just asked if she had taken her numbers from any reports published by Pfizer, that's all.

and you would have avoided this question by viewing, ALL of the video. So you ask a lot of shitty questions in your habit.

beautiful application of the JOE method

Step 2: launching the topic. Here again, you have to choose your sources carefully. Do not get into discussions of scientific articles, you will not get away. Prefer youtube videos of at least 30 minutes (that's already a certain filter and you can skilfully launch to your opponents: "Did you only bother to watch the video?")

come on I put you 16/20 on this one, not 18 because it is not you who launched the subject.

[Janic]

ABC2019 wrote:
Step 2: launching the topic. Here again, you have to choose your sources carefully. Above all, do not get into discussions of scientific articles, you will not get out of it. Prefer youtube videos of at least 30 minutes (that's already a certain filter and you can skilfully launch to your opponents: "Did you only bother to watch the video?")


come on I put you 16/20 on this one, not 18 because it is not you who launched the subject.

once again stupid, if your step two had some value, you would not have asked "where of this one was the contentious point since:
Do not get into discussions of scientific articles, you will not get away. Prefer youtube videos of at least 30 minutes (that's already a certain filter and you can skillfully launch to your opponents:
you don't even know how to read your own ramblings!

[ABC2019]

ABC2019 wrote:
Step 2: launching the topic. Here again, you have to choose your sources carefully. Above all, do not get into discussions of scientific articles, you will not get out of it. Prefer youtube videos of at least 30 minutes (that's already a certain filter and you can skilfully launch to your opponents: "Did you only bother to watch the video?")


come on I put you 16/20 on this one, not 18 because it is not you who launched the subject.

again stupid, if your step two had any value ,!

I didn't say it had any value, I said it was one of JOE's favorite methods so you and Obamot to avoid answering on the merits, and you confirm it.


Edit moderation Christophe: there are many others who practice the same thing Simple for example ... it seems to me to have also read you practice the method of voluntary omission ...

[Janic]

I didn't say it had any value, I said it was one of JOE's favorite methods so you and Obamot to avoid answering on the merits, and you confirm it.

rewrite again it is as if you were graded at your own JOE of 50/20. When at the bottom of things this is what you lack the most, precisely at abysmal depths.

[ABC2019]

I didn't say it had any value, I said it was one of JOE's favorite methods so you and Obamot to avoid answering on the merits, and you confirm it.

rewrite again it is as if you were graded at your own JOE of 50/20. When at the bottom of things this is what you lack the most, precisely at abysmal depths.

No, I don't give links on 50 minute videos saying to look in them for proof of my saying. Never.

[Janic]

No, I don't give links on 50 minute videos saying to look in them for proof of my saying. Never.

which confirms that not having seen the subject in full, a little bit cannot give you the background of thought and the progress of the author's analysis, so your only goal is to denigrate on principle.

[ABC2019]

No, I don't give links on 50 minute videos saying to look in them for proof of my saying. Never.

which confirms that not having seen the subject in full, a little bit cannot give you the background of thought and the progress of the author's analysis, so your only goal is to denigrate on principle.

I didn't disparage anything at all, I just asked if she had taken her data anywhere other than Pfizer's reports, and I had no evidence to say otherwise. And I find the reaction to say that I only have to watch a 52 minute video to find out he's completely stupid.

[Obamot]

Complaint for trolling against ABC2019.

the troller derives satisfaction from having succeeded in fooling his victims, to have made them waste time

And secondarily to get them out of their hinges by harassing them.

All he asked was in the post mentioned (and even written in bold, and the video spooled in the right place, without having to watch it all at all), so it is indeed trolling, insulting the world. intelligence and secondarily of denigration or defamation.

[ABC2019]

Complaint for trolling against ABC2019.

the troller derives satisfaction from having succeeded in fooling his victims, to have made them waste time

And secondarily to get them out of their hinges by harassing them.

All he asked was in the post mentioned, so it is indeed trolling, insulting intelligence.

well of course, don't answer the simple questions asked, say anything instead, and then accuse others of trolling.

First answer the (simple) question asked instead of saying anything: where did Ms. Henrion Caude get her data to do her calculations?