Interesting take. Freemasons that pushed the vax broke their oath to protect fellow freemasons.
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
Yea, that would explain it I. Can anyone show me a prominent Jew celebrity/politician who has obvious vax damage like we see recently in the news?
The premise of what you’re suggesting is so absurd that it doesn’t matter. Even if someone produced a list for you, you’d force it through the same rhetorical loophole that you employed two posts above re: Gavin Newsom.
You think maybe Occam’s Razor applies here and you and the OP just have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about?
Oh, damn, he wielded Occam's Razor. Shits done for. I'm out, I can't compete with that.
Anyway....the fact is that the vax doesn't work, and never worked, and is actually detrimental to many of those who took it. Moreover, those at the top knew this, and pushed it on the hoi polloi anyway. You'd think people who knew that and pushed it anyway, would make sure those closest to them didn't take it. That, mon ami, is also Occam's Razor.
No, Occam’s Razor would actually suggest that those who were pushing the vaccine on “those closest to them” did not know that it would be detrimental to their health. That’s the point, that it’s ineptitude over malevolence. But good try, you were almost there.
Brah, the evidence is so overwhelming that they knew it didn't work, and it was dangerous...aaaaaand pushed it anyway. Given that, why endanger those closest to you?
If you come with Occam's Razor thinking "I hear hoofbeats, so it's horses not zebras" but it's actually not hoofbeats but some other animal, then Occam's Razor gives you nothing (which is exactly where you're at).
If they had two brain cells to rub together at the minimum they would have known the risk was unknown and the benefits were marginal.
Occam's razor doesn't say "simple is better" it actually says follow the fucking evidence which you are vehemently opposed to. For some reason. Probably because you're a jew
Hey retard — Occam’s Razor literally suggests that the simplest explanation is preferable to one that is more complex, that the theory with the fewest set of assumptions is usually correct.
No, faggot. It's laterally laterally says laterally
or plurality should not be posited without necessity
Which means don't make assumptions and go with the evidence. That does not mean "uhhh simpler gooder eduueheuehhh"
How the fuck you think cars work ? If I explained internal combustion and pistons and cam shafts to you that doesn't mean it's fucking magic because "simpler gooder" dumbass