Jump to content

jjjjabbs..How Many will I need now to still fly come April. ??


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, twinstar_ca said:

I think most people are getting tired of the same old rhetoric.. the response to the attempt of the joke thread kind of says it all.... how many more ways can you say/point to/allude to the same attestation.... i really think we are getting close to the end of this thread's usefulness...i will give it to mid-week and if no new dissertations, then it will be closing time... for those who cry what gives me the right to do that?? I'm a moderator... nothing more, nothing less... just at 24 pages, it's all been said... Mike, Admin.. feel free to jump in here and back me or remove me...

Twinstar, 

You have my vote to shut this thread down. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone has a voice, everyone has an opinion. not always shared by others, but everyone has a right to have theirs. With that being said, it is correct that this thread has run its course. there's no middle ground that can be found here. it's as polarizing as oil and water and always will be.

While i hate seeing threads being closed because it takes away people voices...I can see why this one needs to be neutered. Its going nowhere. but if this is closed...another will replace it.

I purposely stayed out of it, because arguing about this topic does no good whatsoever....I've been there done that.

 

We all have a choice....exercise yours and shut the #### up about it...its really that simple at this point. Eventually we will get through this one way or another. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bankers will ensure we stay in debt.  The pharmaceutical companies will ensure we stay sick.  The weapons manufacturers will ensure we keep going to war.  The media will ensure we are prevented from knowing the truth.  The government will ensure that all of this is done legally.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrayHorizons said:

While i hate seeing threads being closed because it takes away people voices...I can see why this one needs to be neutered. Its going nowhere.

 

Seems pretty obvious that you are advocating for censorship, and that's very disturbing, and quite mainstream too, especially among the liberal government of CANADA, right now.

You say 'its going nowhere,' and in other words; the information which has been provided (brought to light), is not what you perceive as going somewhere. Less is best? Hmm?

GrayHorizons versus clear blue skies. Light versus darkness.

Nothing’s more deadly to creatures of illusion and obscurity, than light and clarity - Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2022 at 4:29 PM, twinstar_ca said:

for those who cry what gives me the right to do that?? I'm a moderator...

This would surely amount to censorship, and as a moderator, you are saying that you have the right to do that.

This is as worrisome as what the current government of CANADA is contemplating. Hmm? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2022 at 9:49 AM, 47G-MyFirst said:

1239349540_NIH-TYPEINSEARCHBARIVERMECTINANDCANCER.png.93a77a000f013d396f99ab58e5ab7c78.png

Go to the NIH website and type in Ivermectin and cancer - here is the link: https://www.nih.gov/

PAXLOVID [PFIZER] - AUTHORIZED, is NOT APPROVED.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
 
Apr 11, 2022 - Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kieran Moore, announces eligibility for COVID-19 antiviral treatments.
ONTARIO expands access to COVID-19 antiviral treatment(s) (like Ivermectin...not!) - No; it's specifically for Paxlovid; an antiviral drug made by Pfizer, which has only been granted EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION in the UNITED STATES (and CANADA), but has NOT been APPROVED anywhere.
 
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an EUA for the emergency use of the unapproved PAXLOVID which includes nirmatrelvir, a SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro: also referred to as 3CLpro or nsp5 protease) inhibitor, and ritonavir, an HIV-1 protease inhibitor and CYP3A inhibitor, for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
 
1931047526_PFIZER-PAXLOVID-NOTAUTHORIZEDFORTREATMENTOFCOVID-19.png.c0e9b92b9d918567130c487300f3d169.png
 
271992855_PFIZER-PAXLOVID-NOTFORRESIDENTSOUTSIDEU.S..png.0b354be6dc7028d5f13bc6bec63c9b67.png
 
"A positive result on a PCR or rapid test is required to be assessed for antiviral treatment."
 
There is no such requirement for a PCR test, or a rapid test, that is so listed in the 'monogram' or; FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS: EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION FOR PAXLOVID.
 
As a matter of fact; the U.S. CDC issued the following statement on 07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
 
Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing

Level: Laboratory Alert

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.
 
889462262_CDC-LABALERT-RT-PCR-DECEMBER312021.png.b1499a12fef02946a710f9e84939afe9.png
 
I believe we all need to ask the question; are we honestly getting the best medical advice?
It appears that it has been very questionable in the past two years, or since the start of this "COVID-19" pandemic.
Is it time to change your doctor(s)?
 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
 
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 47G-MyFirst said:

This would surely amount to censorship, and as a moderator, you are saying that you have the right to do that.

This is as worrisome as what the current government of CANADA is contemplating. Hmm? 

This is a private site and they can censor anything they want.  Don't like it, start your own.  

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former Newfoundland premier sues feds over vaccine mandate for travel

“I’m concerned as a Canadian citizen, I’m concerned as a person who was involved in crafting the charter,” said Peckford, who suggested the federal government’s use of Section One of the Constitution — which allows the government to limit charter rights in some cases — is not justified by the pandemic.

“It was never meant to be used in this kind of circumstance,” he said. “It was meant for very serious circumstances, like if the state was in peril, war or insurrection or other things that threatened the state as a country. Not this kind of circumstance where 99 per cent of people recover from a virus. That’s not a threat to the state.”

The legal challenge claims the travel vaccination mandate violates charter rights of mobility, life, liberty and security of the person, privacy, and discrimination. The lawsuit also challenges whether the minister of Transportation has the jurisdiction to use aviation safety powers to enforce public health measures.

“We all have our arguments with the travel ban and we’re all familiar that our rights are being trampled on,” Peckford said of the six individuals named in the lawsuit. “We have to get on with our lives. And from my perspective, I take this very personally because I was involved in [crafting the charter].”

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/former-newfoundland-premier-sues-feds-over-vaccine-mandate-for-travel-5023202

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...