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

[Janic]

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 you would have known by listening to this one in the text and context!

And I find the reaction to say that I only have to watch a 52 minute video to find out he's completely stupid.

What is stupid is to prejudge when you do not want to be really informed and there you do not stop, you even have an excessively long time to do it. So to really know what it is, you watch or you simply lose interest in it. and it's not Kant
Me, I saw or read, almost all the writings and videos of your usual sects in order to note the different points of divergence. It is indeed long, but essential and maybe even you have not seen and read them all And I did not cry so that one does it in my places and places. So assume yourself, for once!

[ABC2019]

and you would have known by listening to this one in the text

proof that no, since you yourself are not able to say it.

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
and you would have known by listening to this one in the text

proof that no, since you yourself are not able to say it.

for the simple reason that I did not listen to her and therefore I have no preconceived opinion on what she could have said there and therefore I do not say anything about it. On the other hand, on the method, it is simply wrong! How to be able to say or know without having listened to it. This is JOE all spit!

[ABC2019]

Janic wrote:
and you would have known by listening to this one in the text

proof that no, since you yourself are not able to say it.

for the simple reason that I did not listen to her and therefore I have no preconceived opinion on what she could have said there and therefore I do not say anything about it. On the other hand, on the method, it is simply wrong! How to be able to say or know without having listened to it.

the 52-minute video wasn't about Ms. Henrion Caude, in fact you've been speaking from the start without even knowing what we're talking about. What a jester ...

[ABC2019]

Me, I saw or read, almost all the writings and videos of your usual sects in order to note the different points of divergence.

Incidentally, you give a very clear description of your motivations and your prejudices, which fully confirms what I was explaining in the JOE method. You are not motivated by the search for truth (hence your complete lack of rational arguments, connections, or reasoning), you are just obsessed with taking apart and contradicting the official discourse.

Go see a shrink and talk to him about your problems with your dad, I'm sure it will be much better afterwards.

[Janic]

the 52-minute video wasn't about Ms. Henrion Caude, in fact you've been speaking from the start without even knowing what we're talking about. What a jester ...

for someone who keeps talking about other subjects he knows nothing about, it's rather laughable! It is you who asked, on this video in question, what Mrs. Henrion caude said, not me, I just made a reflection on the attitude that you adopted, a priori, not on the subject of this video, itself. Still struggling to analyze French? Subject, verb, complement, form.

incidentally, you give a very clear description of your motivations and your prejudices, which fully confirms what I was explaining in the JOE method.

This is what confirms that you are projecting your navel-gazing fantasies onto others. Go see a shrink, he might be able to help you see yourself clearly!

You are not motivated by the search for truth (hence your complete lack of rational arguments, connections, or reasoning), you are just obsessed with taking apart and contradicting the official discourse.

since when do your sects represent the state? Do they have accreditation for that? NO! obviously; so it is indeed a cult speech, self-proclaimed.
The only valid and independent argument of politicians and their lobbies, it remains the official archives, not big pharma!

[ABC2019]

the 52-minute video wasn't about Ms. Henrion Caude, in fact you've been speaking from the start without even knowing what we're talking about. What a jester ...

for someone who keeps talking about other subjects he knows nothing about, it is rather laughable! It is you who asked, on this video in question, what Mrs. Henrion said caude, not me,

Absolutely not, you're talking about another much shorter video where there was Ms. Henrion Caude, who said nonsense about the number of serious cases, but that's not where I asked the question.

I asked it after Obamot questioned the figures I gave from Pfizer, saying that Ms. Henrion Caude had "redone all the calculations", then I told her that I did not understand how she could have redone calculations on something other than those numbers, and there he started posting a 52 minute video that obviously had nothing to do with saying that the answer was there (which I very much doubt).

pollution-prevention-health / medical-responsibility-of-physicians-involved-in-covid-vaccination-t16663-20.html # p423173

After that, you arrived saying anything and confusing the videos, as usual, and therefore, also as usual, no one answered the question of which figures Ms. Henrion Caude had left , but it gave you one more opportunity to do your Laurel and Hardy skit.

Here you will still be able to relieve yourself by vomiting your bile and treating me as a sectarian, go ahead, don't be embarrassed, the forum is made for that .

[Janic]

a B C

Absolutely not, you're talking about another much shorter video where there was Ms. Henrion Caude, who said nonsense about the number of serious cases, but that's not where I asked the question.

If you read better, I didn't quote any video, only that you asked for a passage, no matter which one, so as not to have to watch it, so no comment from me on any of these. But not being able to understand, like a book, the content of this one - on a sentence (figures,) taken from its context
pollution-prevention-health / medical-responsibility-of-physicians-involved-in-covid-vaccination-t16663-20.html # p423173

After that you came up saying anything and confusing the videos,

Except once again, read me again, I did not mention any video, but only your attitude, whatever video it is, whatever it is.

as usual, and so, also as usual, no one answered the question of which numbers Ms Henrion Caude was from, but it gave you one more opportunity to do your Laurel and Hardy sketch.

Watch yourself the video concerned and you will know what it is instead of doing all your usual cinema, yet it is simple from simple.

Here you will still be able to relieve yourself by vomiting your bile and treating me as a sectarian, go ahead, don't be embarrassed, the forum is made for that

No, you're just stupid, the idiots of the coronas virus as Christophe said so well!

[ABC2019]

Except once again, read me again, I did not mention any video, but only your attitude, whatever video it is, whatever it is!

yes, I maintain that my attitude, when I ask a question and someone answers me with a link on a 52 min video without giving the answer, is to say that I don't have that to do, to ask if the answer to the question is there, and if so, that it be given to me instead of just throwing the video.

And I don't intend to change it.

[ABC2019]

Here you will still be able to relieve yourself by vomiting your bile and treating me as a sectarian, go ahead, don't be embarrassed, the forum is made for that

No, you're just stupid, the idiots of the coronas virus as Christophe said so well!

aaah .. that's it it's getting better, did you vomit?