>demonetized for an accusation
I wonder if Mike Tyson's channel is monetized
I'm starting to think you all are actually moronic. Russel Brand is a Hollywood creep and you defend him because he is a creep you can self insert into him for some stupid euphoric.
I don't watch him and couldn't stand him as an actor. Other peoples rights are your rights.
Russell Brand is possibly the least conservative person in Britain. Refusing to take vaccinations is not a Conservative or Progressive issue, regardless of America's current hyper-partisan culture war.
>if you don't follow nu-fascism you are a conservative >"the alt right is rebranding as nu-fascism?!"
the absolute state of the education of the average demoncrat
>"Hey I'm beginning to think these psychopathic billionaires and the politicians they pay off dont have my best interests in mind.." >FRICKING CONSERVATIVE AAAAHHH
sad
his opinions haven't changed. he is doing the same stuff he done in his UK standup pre-hollywood and is doing the same stuff he done on US tv on fox subsidiary channel on the show Brand X.
at that time it wasn't mainstream challenging views, it was just ignorable because it was so fringe. now it is a challenge to the narrative and so you can't say it.
Because he's speaking le heckin truth and exposing le deep state xDD!!! He's totally not a sex pest perverted (even tough he admitted it to) and rapey behaviour and harassment totally doesn't go hand in hand with being a degenerate sex pest coomer. It's all because he's le heckin conservative!!!
>Because he's speaking le heckin truth and exposing le deep state xDD!!! >le spooky conspiratorial buzzword
let me demystify the "deep state" for low iq morons such as yourself
there are 2 ways you can perceive powerful people
option a: you believe they genuinely care about the good of all people as much themselves, as of course powerful people always try to portray themselves in their flowery speeches
option b: you believe they care more about enriching themselves and keeping their power, and working together to keep it that way
if you ignore the entirety of human history, you can probably believe option a
if you believe option b, you believe in some form of "deep state", because it's a foregone conclusion
ok if you want to play semantics I'll add some precision
powerful people are not homogenous, but between option a or b, one is likely dominant
which you think it is?
you're a bit slow aren't you?
I see I need to keep holding your hand to get there
do you want me to draw you pictures with colors and all?
it doesn't have to be 100% a or 100% b, it can be somewhere it between if that's what you believe
there is no dichotomy moron
>option b: you believe they care more about enriching themselves and keeping their power, and working together to keep it that way
How no one else can see this is beyond me, but whatever.
>Because he's speaking le heckin truth and exposing le deep state xDD!!! >le spooky conspiratorial buzzword
let me demystify the "deep state" for low iq morons such as yourself
there are 2 ways you can perceive powerful people
option a: you believe they genuinely care about the good of all people as much themselves, as of course powerful people always try to portray themselves in their flowery speeches
option b: you believe they care more about enriching themselves and keeping their power, and working together to keep it that way
if you ignore the entirety of human history, you can probably believe option a
if you believe option b, you believe in some form of "deep state", because it's a foregone conclusion
Are there people who actually don't "believe" in secret services, good ol' boys clubs like Rotary/masons/Lions, and generational family wealth? Like which part of it do they "disbelieve" lol?
They don't think about things, their brains react to stimuli.
They decry those things when it aligns with the words of their screen priests and deny their existence when it contradicts their programming. They are incapable of recognizing the contradiction because that would require thoughts of their own.
So what do they say when you show them where the local Rotary club is and show them the members? Seriously has anyone ever actually had this conversation with a crazy person?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Same with the freemasons "oh anon those are just rumours amd stories, it's just a charity club" basically dismissal.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Well, yeah but it's not like they really do anything... (despite outright denial of their existence with their previous breathe) >Let's talk about something else >return to prior denial
8 months ago
Anonymous
Same with the freemasons "oh anon those are just rumours amd stories, it's just a charity club" basically dismissal.
Most normies will reject anything conpiracy-adjacent because it scares them, even if it is blatantly obvious
What a terrible life. >Ignorance is bliss
Is it, really?
Who knows. It doesn't matter. A journalist looked it into it, and searched out women who have had similar experiences with him, and the story came out when it was finished. The timing of it is completely irrelevant. >but it must be a conspiracy against him, they want to silence him for speaking the truth
no evidence of that
>Still doesn't address why they waited until now to come forward instead of reporting it as soon as it happened.
actually one of the women went a rape treatment clinic on the same night, and it being recorded was a factor in this investigation being advanced, but this was literally 20 years before MeToo so she didn't pursue it because inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen.
it's where you go so evidence can be gathered as soon as possible, to maximize the chance of a conviction. still far from guarantees one of course.
basically, Brand defenders are saying that this person went to a clinic for rape victims immediately after he fricked her, then said nothing for more than 15 years *for no reason*. if she was after money surely she would have tried to pressure him immediately.
>because inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen
Just because some women thought they wouldn't be taken seriously doesn't actually mean they wouldn't have been taken seriously. People's perceptions can be mistaken.
>inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen.
yet one kid accuses michael jackson of molestation and the media go absolutely all-out batshit crazy in broadcasting that shit globally 24 hours a day every day without any proof or any due diligence whatsoever in fact
and michael jackson was far more wealthy and famous than russell brand will ever be
curious how you "can't get pushback" on certain celebrities, but others get crucified without hesitation
>inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen.
MeToo didn't change anything. The only people who went down during MeToo had run out of money, run out of friends and run out of influence. In reality there was just a massive power struggle going on behind the scenes. Things have not changed for the better since MeToo. They've actually got worse.
Its both. Seriously, this c**t was a sex pest for most of his career and it was fine? As others pointed out, even during the height of metoo? Doesn't mean he's speaking some profound truth either, just that he's getting a little bit too popular and saying the quiet part a little bit too loud.
It’s always the case that they are sex fiends but also calling out the rites. Just like Michael Jackson for example. When you make it big in show business they give you sex on tap so they can use these indiscretions against you for leverage purposes if one day you suddenly decided to act against their interests.
Of course moron pleb normies fall for the false dichotomy and either assume he is wholly guilty or wholly innocent.
this
Brand has a very poor opinion of Biden so he is influencing 5 million potential voters against that senile moron puppet.
Brands' cancelling hasnt worked so im wondering what is going to happen to him next...
You mean Labour and probably Jeremy Corbyn. Because he's a leftist. Not like current year leftists that love war and the military industrial complex, and worship at the feet of multi national corporations and billionaires.
that governments give pharmaceutical companies leway during pandemics and drugs/vaccines that usually get filtered out by the selection process are allowed to pass even if they contain undue/disproportionate side effects due to lax testing.
>that governments give pharmaceutical companies leway during pandemics and drugs/vaccines that usually get filtered out by the selection process are allowed to pass even if they contain undue/disproportionate side effects due to lax testing.
The vaccines were and still are safe and effective.
It's fricking funny how you can post an unsourced Twitter screenshot from a random person and people (/pol/) will instantly believe it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
its funny that youll be a dead Black person soon
8 months ago
Anonymous
The tweet has a video of her talking about though.
It's funny how you are programmed to stay in denial rather to investigate if what you are told is fake is fake or not.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The tweet has a video
Why lie? You can clearly see it's just an image. No timestamp, no play button.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's fricking funny indeed
8 months ago
Anonymous
>A completely different tweet
so why not use that one instead?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Because I didn't post the original tweet. Why not ACTUALLY try to contrast information like I did yourself instead of being a moron?
Fricking funny.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Why not ACTUALLY try to contrast information
lol, of course it's an ESL
8 months ago
Anonymous
>no argument and completely and utterly proven wrong with no possible comeback
Concession accepted. Fricking funny.
If the vaccine is so safe and effective why did everyone stop getting them? Even the most ardent supporters stopped sometime around the 3rd booster. Why aren't they all getting boosters still? According to Phizer everyone should be getting their 10th booster soon.
It's 80x as likely to cause a serious side effect as the average previous vaccine, side effects such as heart attack, stroke, etc.
It's very likely much higher because they introduced a new system with it to filter out side effects that weren't caused by the vaccine.
These are not fringe numbers, they were released by a very pro vax government, and it's not like VAERS, it's reported by doctors.
It's 80x as likely to cause a serious side effect as the average previous vaccine, side effects such as heart attack, stroke, etc.
It's very likely much higher because they introduced a new system with it to filter out side effects that weren't caused by the vaccine.
These are not fringe numbers, they were released by a very pro vax government, and it's not like VAERS, it's reported by doctors.
Intubation with respirators and the wienertail of medicine to keep them comatose for the painful procedure was deadlier that not having respirators on hand.
TWO
MORE
WEEKS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 months ago
Anonymous
sounds like a concession to me
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm here talking about real mainstream numbers with sources and you're putting crazy conspiracy theories I never peddled in my mouth. Why don't you respond to what I said and not some crazy shit that you personally believe is vaguely associated with me and we can have a real conversation?
8 months ago
Anonymous
i'm don't come on Cinemaphile for le heckin serious conversation you dweeb
i'm laughing at antivax morons
8 months ago
Anonymous
why did the cdc stop publishing excess deaths?
8 months ago
Anonymous
When did they stop publishing them?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Look at these dumb morons who believe all this crazy shit with no proof! >PHHT no I don't think about anything I post or read and I don't know any of the stats, why so you ask?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>i'm don't come
unpossible!
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't take this seriously bro (now that I've been proven wrong and/or cornered)
kek
8 months ago
Anonymous
nta but I know what it's like to have people project beliefs onto you. Some anon's ITT have been doing that ever since I raised the possibility that covid itself might be responsible for heart attacks.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not sure I follow. Some schizo making a post probably as a joke and taken out of context makes the vaccine safe and effective how exactly?
one of the greatest sleights of hand they pulled was comparing myocarditis against the mortality for covid, as if myocarditis was the only potential adverse effect and it wasn't just one of thousands
she could have said no and left, there's no proof he raped her, she part-took in this debauchery and is now cashing in because she's hit the wall, it's called hypergamy, but as this is not a relationship, someone probably spoke whispers in her ear that she was abused and can make money from it, and because she's probably a single mother banged up in an estate she probably thinks she can make a big buck
I'm starting to think you all are actually moronic. Russel Brand is a Hollywood creep and you defend him because he is a creep you can self insert into him for some stupid euphoric.
Or, because, until actual evidence comes up that he's raped or assaulted women, I'll assume innocence until then.
Or, is that something only afforded to certain people, aka, the people you agree with?
Of him shooting that woman? I think it's fricked up.
I, for one, believe that justice should be blind.
If a white cops kills a black suspect who actually did nothing wrong, then that cop should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
I don't know why you have this mental image in your head that everyone here is insanely biased.
No he didn't, he answered completely different questions than the one that was actually asked and then tried to change the subject to saint floyd.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You asked him about Alec Baldwin getting off for shooting that woman.
He said it was fricked up.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No he re-framed it and answered his own question to say its fricked up she got shot instead of actually addressing the fact that Baldwin got off consequence free, other than having pay for the husband's grand slam breakfast.
>You see this? Well, I'm a hypocrite about it. >But that was actually you, so there.
Why do so many of you redditors have disassociative personality disorder?
imagine thinking the sex with problems is the one with the single creep rather than the one where a thousand women frick that single creep
for men, he is the outlier, for women they are the norm
No one accused him of anything. BBC "journalists" went to a bunch of the people he used to frick and paid each of them a tidy sum of cash to answer some specific questions. Those answers were then collected and presented in a bunch of articles to be used as justification for when a ton of other, totally unrelated, corporations dropped Brand.
>A bunch of specific questions
Wich specific questions led to the answers "yup, he raped me", "yup he tried to rape me" and "yup i was sixteen and he raped me"?
Shouldn't you analyze VAERS and excess deaths before trying to imply deaths haven't increased massively since vaccine mandates and increased vaccine complications?
And you consider dying of a heart attack to be less severe?
8 months ago
Anonymous
No anon I don't consider death to be less severe than death.
8 months ago
Anonymous
So are you saying the vaccine is incapable of protecting against covid and its side effects or are you saying that the spike protein is capable of causing severe complications so its probably not a good idea to turn your body into a spike protein production machine via the vaccine?
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm saying it's possible the vaccine was not as effective as advertised, and that Covid itself has lasting effects.
8 months ago
Anonymous
So you refuse to comment on whether the lasting effects could be related to the spike protein since the whole point of the vaccine was to be a temporary gene therapy that turns your body into a spike protein production factory?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Of course that's a possibility. Never said it wasn't.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Except when you tried to pass the blame back to covid itself
Couldn't that also be correlated with Covid itself?
instead of acknowledging what the vaccine is and how it relates to covid itself.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Do you understand how logic works? Something being a possibility does not preclude other possibilities.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Then why did you try to introduce some other possibility as a means to preclude harm obviously caused by vaccines?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>obviously
Because it's not obvious if other possibilities exist. Again, do I have to explain logic to you? It could be any of the following: >the vax >the flu itself >a combination of both
8 months ago
Anonymous
No, the only possibility is that the vaccine is not actually as safe and effective as they claimed when they were mandating it if there are sill mass die offs to this day because it doesn't protect from severe complications and may actually contribute to them by encouraging the body to produce dangerous toxins that lead to heart attacks.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>No, the only possibility
no, I already outlined the possibilities here
>obviously
Because it's not obvious if other possibilities exist. Again, do I have to explain logic to you? It could be any of the following: >the vax >the flu itself >a combination of both
and here
I'm saying it's possible the vaccine was not as effective as advertised, and that Covid itself has lasting effects.
8 months ago
Anonymous
All those possibilities you outlined indicate that the vax is either not safe, not effective, or both.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I already said that twice.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Thanks for finally conceding that the excess deaths are a direct result of rushing to roll out a vaccine that was not safe and effective as originally advertised.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Are you dense? I said here already that is is possible the vaccine is not as effective as advertised
I'm saying it's possible the vaccine was not as effective as advertised, and that Covid itself has lasting effects.
Why would I need to concede something I've already being arguing?
8 months ago
Anonymous
didn't it just come out that the CIA has been bribing people to get them to lie about the efficacy of the vaccine?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes and now you have finally conceded that it means they are not as safe as advertised either, so thanks for finally conceding on all points rather than trying to turn the tables to some other possibility while half ass conceding.
8 months ago
Anonymous
There's no concession. These are possibilities:
1. covid itself is the cause of heart attacks.
2. The vax is the cause of the heart attacks.
3. A combination of covid and the vax are the cause of heart attacks.
As I already stated: the vaccines may not have been as effective in lessening the effects of covid as advertised.
The ONLY thing we've been disagreeing about is you dismiss the possibility that the lasting effects covid itself are responsible for heart attacks. I keep all the possibilities open, including that one.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You missed the 4th possiblity, that the heart attacks have nothing to do with either the vax or with covid
8 months ago
Anonymous
true, but that seems very unlikely given the timing of events and absence of other plausible explanations for the heart attacks
*For argument's sake I'm taking it as a given that anon's original claim about a large rise in heart attacks is correct. I don't know for sure.
8 months ago
Anonymous
1. covid caused more respiratory issues than heart attacks
2. strains of covid have mutated to be less deadly each time and the shit around now is nothing
3. everybody for the last 2 years is meant to be "protected" from covd via vaccinations
8 months ago
Anonymous
>1. covid caused more respiratory issues than heart attacks
respiratory problems are known to cause heart problems >2. strains of covid have mutated to be less deadly each time and the shit around now is nothing
I know. It doesn't mean there couldn't be lasting effects of having it when it was more severe. >3. everybody for the last 2 years is meant to be "protected" from covd via vaccinations
Yes I know. I've addressed this multiple times.
8 months ago
Anonymous
that's a lot of cope to avoid the simplest solution
8 months ago
Anonymous
there's no cope in that post.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>you dismiss the possibility that the lasting effects covid itself are responsible for heart attacks
If that was the case all the no vaxxers would have them too. But that's not the case.
Simple heuristics point to the vaccine being the cause of it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>If that was the case all the no vaxxers would have them too. But that's not the case
Isn't it? What evidence is there?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>What evidence is there?
Antivaxxers are still alive.
If the problem was covid related and not vaxx related there would be a specific set of citizens that would be dying instead and the media wouldn't lose their chance to report about it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Antivaxxers are still alive.
So are the vaxxed people, interesting
8 months ago
Anonymous
not as many as there should be
8 months ago
Anonymous
I guess I just have to take your word for it
8 months ago
Anonymous
No, you can take VAERS word for it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Vaers doesn't provide evidence for that, as seen here
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaers-data-misrepresented-734354810823
8 months ago
Anonymous
>yellow journalism outlet outranks medical reporting system
trust the science indeed
8 months ago
Anonymous
>not understanding how VAERS works
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, unlike you I do trust science
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Vaxxoid doesn't understand subtext and focus on the literal part of a text
You are also proof that vaccines cause autism
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Antivaxxers are still alive
Has that been studied? I'm open to the possibility that non-vaxed people (who also contracted covid) haven't been dying of similar complications or similar rates to that of people who got vaxed and also got covid, or who got vaxed but didn't get covid. But I wouldn't just assume it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>no concession
Are you dense? I said here already that is is possible the vaccine is not as effective as advertised [...]
Why would I need to concede something I've already being arguing?
>I actually already conceded
>actually there was never any conceding
See, this is why we have to keep harping because you are obviously lying through your teeth, one post you already conceding a long time ago, the next post you never conceded at all.
8 months ago
Anonymous
How is repeating something I already argued earlier a concession?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Because the argument was that you conceded.
8 months ago
Anonymous
no, the argument was as follows >anon says the vaccines must be the reason >I ask "couldn't it also be possible that covid itself is the culprit?" >anon comes back with "So you're conceding that the vaccines didn't stop people getting covid or reduce its effects? >I reply that I never said that wasn't a possibility
and so on....
This all goes back to anon assuming (wrongly) that I don't think the vaccines could be responsible. Note my words "ALSO be possible."
8 months ago
Anonymous
No it went like this. >anon claims vaccines were and are safe and effective >other anon points out that there are still many heart attacks >you try to say that it probably not the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, but probably the fault of covid >then you can't justify either the safety nor the effectiveness of the vaccine while still trying to maintain that the original shitposter wasn't just baiting about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>>you try to say that it probably not the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, but probably the fault of covid
you're putting words in my mouth now. This is what I said word for word:
Couldn't that also be correlated with Covid itself?
>Couldn't that also be correlated with Covid itself?
There's no "probably" in there, and there's nothing about the vaccine being "safe & effective." You've projected that onto my post.
>while still trying to maintain that the original shitposter wasn't just baiting about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.
I've done nothing of the sort. More projection.
8 months ago
Anonymous
So you agree that based on the excess deaths and increased heart attacks and VAERS reposts that the vaccine is not safe (since it makes your body produce deadly toxins) nor effective (since it doesn't actually prevent severe covid complications or the spread of covid)?
8 months ago
Anonymous
I have no idea if that is true or not. I said it is possible. I also raised the possibility that covid itself could be responsible for heart problems. Raising that possibility led you to make a whole bunch of projections and assumptions about what I do or don't believe. I can imagine that might be because you think anyone who raises one possibility couldn't also believe the other is also possible.
8 months ago
Anonymous
are you a woman? this "anything is possible" homosexualry serves no purpose and is just annoying
8 months ago
Anonymous
>are you a woman?
no. I also never said anything is possible.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Not ruling out a possibility without good reason is a proper scientific approach; why would you associate that with being a woman
8 months ago
Anonymous
because with science, possibilities are meant to turn into probabilities and from there you assess a likely cause of problems, so you can ultimately find solutions
the land of endless possibilities without follow-through is the domain of women
8 months ago
Anonymous
No one is advocating no "follow-through" though. You don't just jump to the conclusion you're more emotionally inclined to believe just because you don't have enough data to make a more informed determination - THAT would be the behaviour of a woman.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>THAT would be the behaviour of a woman.
or a man with more egotistical pride than sense
8 months ago
Anonymous
>You don't just jump to the conclusion you're more emotionally inclined to believe
you mean like vaxies clinging to the hope that the made the right choice despite all evidence to the contrary?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah. I'm not vaxed, and it's because I don't think something rushed out that quickly can have been satisfactorily proven to be safe. That's not the same as being convinced that it's unsafe.
8 months ago
Anonymous
cool story bro
8 months ago
Anonymous
I know, that's why I shared it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Then why don't you drink bleach since that can't be ruled out as a cure for infections diseases and it would be good science to do so?
8 months ago
Anonymous
that's where the "without good reason" bit comes it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You don't know, it could be the diseases fighting back against the bleach themselves that cause problems rather than the actual drinking of bleach, you can't eliminate any options if you want to do good science.
8 months ago
Anonymous
we already have plenty of knowledge about the danger of drinking bleach. Try again.
8 months ago
Anonymous
We literally put bleach in drinking water to sterilize it, maybe you just need to figure out the proper dosing.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Where's the contradiction?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Exactly there is none, so why aren't you drinking bleach to cure your ailments since it can't be ruled out scientifically?
8 months ago
Anonymous
that makes no sense. You've said that bleach can be used in tiny enough doses to sterilize it without poisoning people. it doesn't logically follow that someone should drink bleach to cure ailments.
Did you think you had a point?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>to sterilize it
*to sterilize water, correction
8 months ago
Anonymous
If it kills organism in the external environment, it should be able to kill them in your internal environment, you can't rule that out without testing out a variety of doses of bleach to cure your ailments.
8 months ago
Anonymous
non-sequitur again. you're not as clever as you think you are.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Wrong. If bleach kills harmful organisms anywhere, it can kill them everywhere, scientifically, so you can't rule out that proper doses of bleach should be able to cure any ailment related to any organism that can be killed by bleach.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>If bleach kills harmful organisms anywhere, it can kill them everywhere
not logical. something that could safely kill an organism in a petri-dish might not be also able to safely kill an organism in your stomach. Location, location, location.
>so you can't rule out that proper doses of bleach should be able to cure any ailment related to any organism that can be killed by bleach
Such things have been tested in controlled environment, usually on animals before it gets to humans. We not in a knowledge vacuum here.
Again, you're nowhere near as clever as you think, but you have too much pride to admit it was a dumb analogy.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>might not
But you said that you can't rule it out until you try.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But you said that you can't rule it out until you try
no I didn't. quote it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Not ruling out a possibility without good reason is a proper scientific approach; why would you associate that with being a woman
8 months ago
Anonymous
not me. this was me:
that's where the "without good reason" bit comes it.
We already have enough good reason (knowledge) not to drink bleach in the hope that it cures any ailment.
It's also not the way any sensible person would chose to test such as thing >I'll just drink this and hope for the best, I can always adjust the dosage as I go along
8 months ago
Anonymous
>We already have enough good reason (knowledge) not to drink bleach in the hope that it cures any ailment.
No because they put bleach in drinking water to prevent disease.
8 months ago
Anonymous
We've been over this before
that makes no sense. You've said that bleach can be used in tiny enough doses to sterilize it without poisoning people. it doesn't logically follow that someone should drink bleach to cure ailments.
Did you think you had a point?
8 months ago
Anonymous
That wasn't the anon you're currently arguing with, that was me. And just as he did, I'll draw your attention to the words "without good reason". High concentrations of hydrogen peroxide causing severe tissue damage on ingestion would be a pretty good reason.
You point out that in heavily diluted concentrations it can be safe, so why not try it? Well, how do you know it hasn't been tried in a clinical setting?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I also raised the possibility that covid itself could be responsible
We went over this, if covid itself, specifically its spike protein, is still responsible for all those deaths, it means the vaccine is neither safe nor effective, so will you finally admit as much or just keep trying to say you actually don't know anything, but the vaccine still might be safe and effective like the shitposter said?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>it means the vaccine is neither safe nor effective
How many times do I have to explain to you that I never said it was? Quote the post where you think I said it was?
You seem to think you're arguing with someone who doesn't think the vaccine could be the culprit.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You literally just said you have no idea because you refuse to admit that it is neither safe nor effective while everything you post trying to sidestep the fact that it is clearly neither.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>because you refuse to admit that it is neither safe nor effective
I've been saying ever since my post here
I'm saying it's possible the vaccine was not as effective as advertised, and that Covid itself has lasting effects.
that if covid is the cause of heart problems, then obviously the vax isn't as effective as it was sold as. I've also been saying it is possible the vax itself is the cause of heart problems (i.e. not safe).
This whole argument is just you seeing this post
Couldn't that also be correlated with Covid itself?
(my first to you) and assuming I'm someone who thinks the vaccine must be safe and effective.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No, you kept saying you have no idea if it is safe or effective because of the possibility covid correlates with heart problems rather than saying it is definitely not safe nor effective because it uses toxic methods and doesn't actually prevent serious symptoms, so until you actually say it is not safe and not effective, I will keep pointing out that you are just using weasel words to half ass simp for the vax.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Well I'm not going anywhere so I'm quite happy to explain it again. Possibilities:
1. Covid is the cause of heart problems, in which case the vaccine obviously wasn't as effective or safe as advertised.
2. The vaccine alone is the cause of heart problems (I don't need to repeat 'safe & effective' again as it goes without saying).
3. A combination of both covid and the vaccine are the cause of heart problems (ditto).
At no point ITT have I said "I don't know if the vaccine is safe & effective." What I said was that I don't know if numbers 2 and 3 are the cause, and that it is possible that number 1 is the cause.
You said the vaccine's spike proteins are the cause of heart problems. I said I don't know if that is true, and that it could be #1. This is all we disagreed over.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Then just say that the vaccine is not safe and not effective since all those possibilities lead to that conclusion, until then you are still trying to weasel your way out of admitting that at no point was the gene therapy actually able to act in any vaccine capacity as advertised.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Then just say that the vaccine is not safe and not effective
When did I say it wasn't? Please quote the post.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If you were vaxed, I'd suspect that the vaccine was responsible for your profound stupidity.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the possibility that the lasting effects covid itself are responsible for heart attacks.
No, I am saying that is still largely a result of people being told they were safe and protected from covid by a vaccine that was neither safe nor effective at preventing covid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's certainly possible that people became complacent about covid due to believing the vaccines had them covered. But you'll note that in that scenario covid itself still has to be capable of causing heart attacks.
People who argue it was just a relatively harmless flu that didn't warrant vaccines or lock-downs would disagree with that.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>in that scenario covid itself still has to be capable of causing heart attacks.
Probably because of the spike proteins causing blood clots in the heart for a subset of the population which is why it is neither safe nor effective to use gene therapy to force your body to manufacture them.
Even relatively harmless viruses can cause fatal problems in some portion of the population, the masks, vaccines and lockdowns still wouldn't have solved the problem and now we will never really have any idea how toxic they are because entire industries have significant incentive to lie about it to protect their profits.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Probably because of the spike proteins causing blood clots in the heart
Possibly. We've been over the possibilities already.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes but all possibilities we have gone over means that the vaccine is neither safe nor effective.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I never claimed otherwise. You simply assumed I thought that.
this may be naive (in fact I'm almost sure it is) but to be successful convicted the woman probably has to at least signal that your approach is unwanted. Maybe.
At my workplace we were told by HR that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with asking a coworker on a date, it's when they turn you down and you persist in perusing them that it becomes sexual harassment.
It's amazing to me that the left completely falls in line with big business corpo idealism while at the same time denouncing capitalism. They were completely broken after Occupy Wallstreet, the high IQ capitalists just put LGBT banners and DEI shit all over the place and now leftists are their fricking foot soldiers, for no money at all (which is good ?!)
I can never get progressives to tell me what their future looks like
Obama ran on marriage being between a man and a woman. Biden is hanging up transgender flags at the white house and hosting drag queen story hours
When I ask what the next big thing is, what the advertisements of 2033 pushing the boundaries will look like. My guess is more people missing limbs. Fat people who got a leg cut off from diabetes
I've always hated this guy but I'm trying to rise above the temptation to gloat over his downfall. Not because I'm trying to be a better person or because of any political/chud/antivax shit, it's just that these media hatchet-jobs are beginning to feel a little too co-ordinated.
It's like how people apparently knew about Weinstein for literally DECADES before he went down. Countless complaints and accusations from lots of different people, some of them celebrities themselves, yet nothing ever got done. None of it was even reported. Until one day it's like his downfall was magically greenlit and it's suddenly a feeding frenzy.
>Why didn't they accuse him at the height of #MeToo? Why would they wait until now?
Good question.
Yeah, the people proudly proclaiming how virtuous they are about Russell Brand getting taken down come off even more skeevy than he does, for the reasons you mention
Can you imagine shooting a load inside prime katy perry's womb? I don't blame the guy he basically went crazy, he says he was a sex addict and of course he was, most likely he raped and did all kinds of degen stuff, he basically chased the dragon after that
After the jimmy saville scandal the police launched an investigation on celebrities for any sex crimes from the past which led to rolf harris being jailed yet nothing came up against brand despite all this evidence, strange isn't it
Well because now they regret it. They thought they fricked a popular well-educated but working class sounding bloke who was a socialist and told all their friends about it.
Turns out he was an predatory anti-vaxxer though who is irrelevant now. That means the loads that are still floating around in them are unwanted, which is basically rape anon.
no one outside of the UK has seriously rated him as a comedian for more than a decade. he can do standup tours based on name recognition but that's it.
The British establishment is a protection racket just like Scientology. They have untold amounts of legit dirt on people that they keep hush as long as that person is willing to comply with the status quo. Just as Savile was exposed when he died and was no longer useful, Brand ceased to be useful as his outspoken anti-authority rhetoric developed a larger platform and so these allegations are coming to light. The media in the UK is full of sexual abusers and they will continue to be protected, but only as long as they continue to play by the rules.
The people who predict that a societal collapse won't happen constantly forget that incidents like these cement the betrayal of govt as a concept in the minds of millions of people at a time.
And good thing, govt is the plague of the past 3 millennia. Every govt worker should be tortured to death, revived, and tortured again.
The vast majority of people that died """""from covid""""" actually died because hospitals didn't have enough respirators as they are penny pinching israelite fricks but notice how none of this gets mentioned anywhere because it would cost them money.
Instead they created a experimental wienertail that didn't follow any of the standard procedures to get it out there and people willingly took it for some reason.
Intubation with respirators and the wienertail of medicine to keep them comatose for the painful procedure was deadlier that not having respirators on hand.
>Intubation with respirators and the wienertail of medicine to keep them comatose for the painful procedure was deadlier
Deadlier than not breathing? Huh, interesting. >this is the people telling you that the vaxx is safe and effective
>The vast majority of people that died """""from covid""""" actually died because hospitals didn't have enough respirators
that's like saying someone jumped off a skyscraper and didn't die from the impact, but because there wasn't a giant trampoline at the bottom to catch them
The respirators stopped people from dying and if there was enough respirators a lot less peopel would hve died. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Intubation with respirators and the wienertail of medicine to keep them comatose for the painful procedure was deadlier that not having respirators on hand.
Yes of course. The vaxx? Perfectly safe and effective but the respirators killed billions.
>Yes of course. The vaxx? Perfectly safe and effective but the respirators killed billions.
No, the medical industry is what kills billions especially when they are incentives for people dying with covid leading to medical error jumping to the 2nd leading cause of death during the pandemic.
No, your point was that if the medical industry just had more respirators they wouldn't have killed so many people for the sweet sweet covid money from the deep pockets of uncle sam.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>your point was that if the medical industry just had more respirators they wouldn't have killed so many people
Yes? My point is that the medical industry killed people, that's exactly what I said.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No you said if there was more medical industry with more respirators there would be less deaths when death by medical error has only increased with the GDP share of the medical industry.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>death by medical error has only increased with the GDP share of the medical industry
I'm talking specifically about the covid situation thought not about the history of healthcare as a whole though.
Read the room, you are in a covid thread.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes and in that specific case, people were dying because the medical industry was incentivized to use the deadliest therapy because they got paid for every death with covid rather than getting paid for everyone who they helped recover from covid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That sounds stupid. If that was the case they could have just not treated people or straight up chalk every death to covid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The fraud would be way too easy to detect its already very statistically suspect that they blamed all influenza deaths on covid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The fraud would be way too easy to detect >its already very statistically suspect
So you argue that they can't do it because it would be too obvious but at the same time you argue that they did it and it's been all but proven. Try to stick to a coherent narrative.
Not even sure why you are replying to me still when it's clear I was attacking the healthcare system from the start which is what you've been doing too as far as I can tell.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Its easy to prove statistically, but not legally because they have different standards and burdens of proof.
You weren't attacking the healthcare system at first, you were defending them and saying that if we just bought them more respirators, they would have saved a bunch of people.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Its easy to prove statistically, but not legally
So they can do it. While you stated otherwise. >You weren't attacking the healthcare system at first, you were defending them
lol frick off already
The vast majority of people that died """""from covid""""" actually died because hospitals didn't have enough respirators as they are penny pinching israelite fricks but notice how none of this gets mentioned anywhere because it would cost them money.
Instead they created a experimental wienertail that didn't follow any of the standard procedures to get it out there and people willingly took it for some reason.
>hospitals didn't have enough respirators as they are penny pinching israelite fricks but notice how none of this gets mentioned anywhere because it would cost them money
8 months ago
Anonymous
>So they can do it. While you stated otherwise.
No, I said that the fraud is already so easy to statistically prove that a legal case would be inevitable if they would have went any further with the fraud and tried to blame all deaths on covid for the gibs instead of just all respiratory diseases.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I said that the fraud is already
But they didn't know this 3 years ago. You are making zero sense. Try to be fricking coherent with your schizo ramblings please.
If they already lied about it, then they already did it. You claim that they can't when it's been done already because it would be too obvious which it already is.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But they didn't know this 3 years ago.
It takes time to collect statistics.
>Try to be fricking coherent with your schizo ramblings please.
I am being coherent, you just don't understand that statistical analysis and legal systems have completely different standards and burden of proof.
>You claim that they can't when it's been done already because it would be too obvious which it already is.
It is statistically obviously but there is not yet any group who has organized the evidence enough to take legal action against any obvious individual or group they can prove is responsible to legal standards for burden of proof, but if they went just a bit further with their fraud and blamed all deaths rather than all respiratory diseases, it would be much easier for some group to justify legal bills necessary in bringing cases against specific organizations.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It takes time to collect statistics.
That's irrelevant to anything you or I have said.
>I am being coherent
You said that they did something (killing people with respirators, lol) that they could have done easier (by simply letting them die and chalk it to covid) but they didn't do it easier because it would be too obvious. But the thing you said they couldn't do because it would be too obvious, they did it, and it was too obvious. Yo are anything but coherent.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No I said the reason they didn't blame all deaths on covid instead of just flu and respiratory deaths was because it would be so easy to detect the fraud that legal cases would be inevitable.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the reason they didn't blame all deaths on covid instead of just flu and respiratory deaths was because it would be so easy to detect
But they already did it and it was obvio9us. So your whole argument about it being no bueno to inflate covid death numbers crumbles. BECAUSE THEY DID EXACTLY THAT. What is so hard to understand?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But they already did it and it was obvio9us
No, there were other types of deaths too, I only said the flu disappeared and they unnecessarily put people with respiratory problems on respirators, you must be confusing a bunch of different anons.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>No, there were other types of deaths too
Oh so you are now gonna play moron and pretend the discussion was about lying bout ALL the deaths that happened and not just the respirator ones?
Good, concession accepted.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Link the quote.
Here is what I said
The fraud would be way too easy to detect its already very statistically suspect that they blamed all influenza deaths on covid.
in response to
That sounds stupid. If that was the case they could have just not treated people or straight up chalk every death to covid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You wasted two hours of your limited time on earth losing an internet argument because you thought a post reading "the healthcare system is a bunch of penny pinching israelite fricks" was a post defending the healthcare system. Let that sink in.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The fraud would be way too easy to detect its already >already
Covid happened 3 years ago. What happens now has no relevance to what people did back then.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>or straight up chalk every death to covid.
Have you been living in a cave the last few years? Or just listened to billionaire owned media that won't tell you inconvenient things? If you got covid, anything you'd die from in the next three months would be chalked up as a covid death. Car accident, suicide, cancer, if you had covid at any point, the death was covid related.
>I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Your post implied that people didn't die from covid but from a lack of medical intervention. When it was covid that made them critically ill and gave them need for that intervention. It's just a really weird thing to say.
>but from a lack of medical intervention
Because that is, in fact, the case. As proven by all the people that didn't die because they got the proper medical intervention.
Again, not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Right. So if I stab you in the chest in a way which is ultimately treatable but there are no ambulances available to take you, am I not guilty of murdering you? I get that their deaths were preventable, I'm not arguing that, I just find your semantics weird. It's really strange to say that they were not killed by the thing that literally killed them but by their lack of treatment.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>So if I stab you in the chest in a way which is ultimately treatable but there are no ambulances available to take you, am I not guilty of murdering you?
Yes you are because you inflicted the wound but the lack of treatment killed me as much as the wound itself.
For instance if you get attacked by someone and I don't help you calling the ambulance I would get in trouble.
Imagine being a leftist and you start questioning why people are being vaccinated and locked up over the sniffles. If you’re a nobody you get deplatformed from social media for “false information”, if you’re a doctor you lose your license for prescribing antivirals, and if you’re a comedian you receive bogus rape allegations.
It goes for “conservatives” as well. Most of these people want the same bulshit war in Ukraine. The same bullshit lockdowns for the sniffle virus. The same bullshit censorship online. But hey, at least my side is winning because I identify as a brainwashed leftists. Go BLm and down with racism. All trannies are real women!
Why does it matter?
why does anything matter?
Yeah just eat the bugs and shut up, stop asking questions.
literal schizo answer, connecting two completely different things and then yelling NWO at the top of your lungs
They are obsessed with eating bugs and trannies
enjoy your synthetic meat, climb in here, put on this headset why do you care? what's the difference?
>Unpromted schizo rambling
Important.
cool it with the antisemitism
He didn't have conservative opinions back then.
>He didn't have conservative opinions back then.
He doesn't have them now.
>wellness = conservative
it's nice that you admit that you want to poison, mutilate and kill people
>demonetized for an accusation
I wonder if Mike Tyson's channel is monetized
I don't watch him and couldn't stand him as an actor. Other peoples rights are your rights.
Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Russell Brand is possibly the least conservative person in Britain. Refusing to take vaccinations is not a Conservative or Progressive issue, regardless of America's current hyper-partisan culture war.
This, he started acting as some redpill pundit after his career kind of died down
>He doesn't have them now.
If you don't follow nu-fascism and think that it is the only correct choice in every regard you are a conservative.
wot
What is there not to understand?
Not sure I want to know now tbh
Don't worry, your programming wouldn't allow your mind to retain the information anyway.
Is the alt-right really rebranding itself as "nu-fascism"?
>if you don't follow nu-fascism you are a conservative
>"the alt right is rebranding as nu-fascism?!"
the absolute state of the education of the average demoncrat
Simping for big corporatios and worshipping war is leftist now.
>check his sub count
yeah nobody gives a shit about his opinions
>"Hey I'm beginning to think these psychopathic billionaires and the politicians they pay off dont have my best interests in mind.."
>FRICKING CONSERVATIVE AAAAHHH
sad
You people are fricking mindbroken. I remember a time when questioning those in higher status than you was not a partisan thing.
When the experts become corrupt, criticizing them becomes "populism"
he literally thinks immigration is good
his opinions haven't changed. he is doing the same stuff he done in his UK standup pre-hollywood and is doing the same stuff he done on US tv on fox subsidiary channel on the show Brand X.
at that time it wasn't mainstream challenging views, it was just ignorable because it was so fringe. now it is a challenge to the narrative and so you can't say it.
Because he's speaking le heckin truth and exposing le deep state xDD!!! He's totally not a sex pest perverted (even tough he admitted it to) and rapey behaviour and harassment totally doesn't go hand in hand with being a degenerate sex pest coomer. It's all because he's le heckin conservative!!!
>Because he's speaking le heckin truth and exposing le deep state xDD!!!
>le spooky conspiratorial buzzword
let me demystify the "deep state" for low iq morons such as yourself
there are 2 ways you can perceive powerful people
option a: you believe they genuinely care about the good of all people as much themselves, as of course powerful people always try to portray themselves in their flowery speeches
option b: you believe they care more about enriching themselves and keeping their power, and working together to keep it that way
if you ignore the entirety of human history, you can probably believe option a
if you believe option b, you believe in some form of "deep state", because it's a foregone conclusion
>there are 2 ways you can perceive powerful people
false dichotomy
ok if you want to play semantics I'll add some precision
powerful people are not homogenous, but between option a or b, one is likely dominant
which you think it is?
False dichotomy.
you're a bit slow aren't you?
I see I need to keep holding your hand to get there
do you want me to draw you pictures with colors and all?
it doesn't have to be 100% a or 100% b, it can be somewhere it between if that's what you believe
there is no dichotomy moron
If you know it is false, what details are they missing, what are the other options?
>option b: you believe they care more about enriching themselves and keeping their power, and working together to keep it that way
How no one else can see this is beyond me, but whatever.
Are there people who actually don't "believe" in secret services, good ol' boys clubs like Rotary/masons/Lions, and generational family wealth? Like which part of it do they "disbelieve" lol?
They don't think about things, their brains react to stimuli.
They decry those things when it aligns with the words of their screen priests and deny their existence when it contradicts their programming. They are incapable of recognizing the contradiction because that would require thoughts of their own.
Most normies will reject anything conpiracy-adjacent because it scares them, even if it is blatantly obvious
So what do they say when you show them where the local Rotary club is and show them the members? Seriously has anyone ever actually had this conversation with a crazy person?
Same with the freemasons "oh anon those are just rumours amd stories, it's just a charity club" basically dismissal.
>Well, yeah but it's not like they really do anything... (despite outright denial of their existence with their previous breathe)
>Let's talk about something else
>return to prior denial
What a terrible life.
>Ignorance is bliss
Is it, really?
What a midwit take, sounds like a person from /misc/
Still doesn't address why they waited until now to come forward instead of reporting it as soon as it happened.
They can never give a concrete answer to this.
>THE COPS DON'T BELIEVE ME!
lol
Who knows. It doesn't matter. A journalist looked it into it, and searched out women who have had similar experiences with him, and the story came out when it was finished. The timing of it is completely irrelevant.
>but it must be a conspiracy against him, they want to silence him for speaking the truth
no evidence of that
>The timing of it is completely irrelevant
It might be or it might not be. We're not in a position to know.
>Still doesn't address why they waited until now to come forward instead of reporting it as soon as it happened.
actually one of the women went a rape treatment clinic on the same night, and it being recorded was a factor in this investigation being advanced, but this was literally 20 years before MeToo so she didn't pursue it because inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen.
what the frick is a rape treatment clinic lmao
it's where you go so evidence can be gathered as soon as possible, to maximize the chance of a conviction. still far from guarantees one of course.
basically, Brand defenders are saying that this person went to a clinic for rape victims immediately after he fricked her, then said nothing for more than 15 years *for no reason*. if she was after money surely she would have tried to pressure him immediately.
>because inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen
Just because some women thought they wouldn't be taken seriously doesn't actually mean they wouldn't have been taken seriously. People's perceptions can be mistaken.
So if I go to a hospital and then 20 years later I claim that someone punched me in the face that someone will get his life ruined? Huh, interesting.
If 20 people see you on tv and go "hold on, thats the bloke than punched me years ago, frick that guy!" Why wouldnt they try to get some retribution
>inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen.
yet one kid accuses michael jackson of molestation and the media go absolutely all-out batshit crazy in broadcasting that shit globally 24 hours a day every day without any proof or any due diligence whatsoever in fact
and michael jackson was far more wealthy and famous than russell brand will ever be
curious how you "can't get pushback" on certain celebrities, but others get crucified without hesitation
MJ was black.
not when he fiddled with those kids
>inability to get any pushback against a celebrity was the whole reason MeToo needed to happen.
MeToo didn't change anything. The only people who went down during MeToo had run out of money, run out of friends and run out of influence. In reality there was just a massive power struggle going on behind the scenes. Things have not changed for the better since MeToo. They've actually got worse.
Its both. Seriously, this c**t was a sex pest for most of his career and it was fine? As others pointed out, even during the height of metoo? Doesn't mean he's speaking some profound truth either, just that he's getting a little bit too popular and saying the quiet part a little bit too loud.
It’s always the case that they are sex fiends but also calling out the rites. Just like Michael Jackson for example. When you make it big in show business they give you sex on tap so they can use these indiscretions against you for leverage purposes if one day you suddenly decided to act against their interests.
Of course moron pleb normies fall for the false dichotomy and either assume he is wholly guilty or wholly innocent.
they know Trump has 2024 locked up so they need to take out every one even this british queef
this
Brand has a very poor opinion of Biden so he is influencing 5 million potential voters against that senile moron puppet.
Brands' cancelling hasnt worked so im wondering what is going to happen to him next...
as long as he supports my political candidate, I dont care what kind of monster he is
I just hate women
We knew.
That guy is fricking hilarious.
or that nobody gave a shit until she went against the libs
You mean Labour and probably Jeremy Corbyn. Because he's a leftist. Not like current year leftists that love war and the military industrial complex, and worship at the feet of multi national corporations and billionaires.
for me, it's supporting opposite of current thing
damn look at the size of those tootsies
>for me, it's supporting opposite of current thing
direct me to any example of this approach being wrong.
1930s germany
xdd
Feet like submarines
The texture and subtle furriness makes them look more like gyros than submarine sandwiches.
LOOK AT THOSE FRICKING SLEDS
BIGFOOT LIVES!
ah, the riverfolk
What part of The Shire is she from?
>Why would they wait until now?
Because he started to notice
https://twitter.com/LangmanVince/status/1703129460487180344
Noticed that pharmaceutical companies do well during pandemics? What's the crazy conspiracy or controversy around that?
that governments give pharmaceutical companies leway during pandemics and drugs/vaccines that usually get filtered out by the selection process are allowed to pass even if they contain undue/disproportionate side effects due to lax testing.
>that governments give pharmaceutical companies leway during pandemics and drugs/vaccines that usually get filtered out by the selection process are allowed to pass even if they contain undue/disproportionate side effects due to lax testing.
The vaccines were and still are safe and effective.
>The vaccines were and still are safe and effective.
nice to know they're available if i ever decide to take them
>that smug face
she knows none of them will be punished for killing millions of people
It's fricking funny how you can post an unsourced Twitter screenshot from a random person and people (/pol/) will instantly believe it.
its funny that youll be a dead Black person soon
The tweet has a video of her talking about though.
It's funny how you are programmed to stay in denial rather to investigate if what you are told is fake is fake or not.
>The tweet has a video
Why lie? You can clearly see it's just an image. No timestamp, no play button.
It's fricking funny indeed
>A completely different tweet
so why not use that one instead?
Because I didn't post the original tweet. Why not ACTUALLY try to contrast information like I did yourself instead of being a moron?
Fricking funny.
>Why not ACTUALLY try to contrast information
lol, of course it's an ESL
>no argument and completely and utterly proven wrong with no possible comeback
Concession accepted. Fricking funny.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline?tab=table&country=~BIH
here are your excess deaths moron, enjoy
>there’s a pandemic
>people died in the pandemic
>mortality went up.
Are chuds really so stupid that they can’t understand the obvious fact of the data?
Thank God we got rid of the Flu while Covid was killing all same people the Flu usually killed.
Cult members with a sub 80- IQ believe one virus goes away because another virus comes out.
That's nice but I'm just not gonna take it
HAHAHA
I know I know.
I'm just...not gonna do it
oh and by the way, scroll down and change filter to: projected VS reported for the real good numbers
and if it still isn't clear, the numbers of deaths DIP during lockdown periods, and rise after vaccinations began
If the vaccine is so safe and effective why did everyone stop getting them? Even the most ardent supporters stopped sometime around the 3rd booster. Why aren't they all getting boosters still? According to Phizer everyone should be getting their 10th booster soon.
>The vaccines were and still are safe and effective.
oh no, a gif with random headlines of old articles with zero context or source, you sure proved him wrong
Now show any respectable medical institutions that says the vaccines are bad and more harmful than helpful
>respectable medical institutions
The answer I expected, no wonder the wider world doesn't take antivaxxers seriously
It's 80x as likely to cause a serious side effect as the average previous vaccine, side effects such as heart attack, stroke, etc.
It's very likely much higher because they introduced a new system with it to filter out side effects that weren't caused by the vaccine.
These are not fringe numbers, they were released by a very pro vax government, and it's not like VAERS, it's reported by doctors.
Excuse me, 10x as likely.
TWO
MORE
WEEKS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sounds like a concession to me
I'm here talking about real mainstream numbers with sources and you're putting crazy conspiracy theories I never peddled in my mouth. Why don't you respond to what I said and not some crazy shit that you personally believe is vaguely associated with me and we can have a real conversation?
i'm don't come on Cinemaphile for le heckin serious conversation you dweeb
i'm laughing at antivax morons
why did the cdc stop publishing excess deaths?
When did they stop publishing them?
>Look at these dumb morons who believe all this crazy shit with no proof!
>PHHT no I don't think about anything I post or read and I don't know any of the stats, why so you ask?
>i'm don't come
unpossible!
>I don't take this seriously bro (now that I've been proven wrong and/or cornered)
kek
nta but I know what it's like to have people project beliefs onto you. Some anon's ITT have been doing that ever since I raised the possibility that covid itself might be responsible for heart attacks.
I'm not sure I follow. Some schizo making a post probably as a joke and taken out of context makes the vaccine safe and effective how exactly?
one of the greatest sleights of hand they pulled was comparing myocarditis against the mortality for covid, as if myocarditis was the only potential adverse effect and it wasn't just one of thousands
vaxxie rage
Popcorn chikkin
Edit: oops wrong thread
it's never too late or too soon for justice
frick this rapist bong
she could have said no and left, there's no proof he raped her, she part-took in this debauchery and is now cashing in because she's hit the wall, it's called hypergamy, but as this is not a relationship, someone probably spoke whispers in her ear that she was abused and can make money from it, and because she's probably a single mother banged up in an estate she probably thinks she can make a big buck
he's been a known creepy sex pest rapist his entire life, no one is surprised this is happening at all
eventually everything catches up to you
>eventually everything catches up to you
>"It was good while it lasted"
>continues trolling victims even in death
master criminal
#metoo is ongoing.
This is part of it.
they'll release that Epstein list any day now.
Probably the usual. They DID accuse him back then, but personally so he gave them a bunch of money to frick off. But then they spent it all
it wasn't until he criticized obama and then the biden admin that all these "rape" victims came out.
Weird.
>it wasn't until (X)
he's been on the Kremlin payroll for 15 years
...try again, poltard?
Is that infamous shooter Alec Baldwin?
ever get tired of lying constantly? judgement day will be neet
Thank frick.
I like watching this dude get eaten alive by his ilk.
Imagine thinking it is better using an anime picture of brandt than just shopping in the headline yourself.
This is the ai you morons are afraid of.
I'm starting to think you all are actually moronic. Russel Brand is a Hollywood creep and you defend him because he is a creep you can self insert into him for some stupid euphoric.
He's cringe and I don't care for him but let's not act like this is anything besides a witch hunt and an attempt to silence him
> oh no he had consensual sex with women what a creep!
Okay incel.
Seething vaxcattle
Just because I am vaxxed and planning to get the new booster doesn't mean that I am cattle. It's just expeditious for me to do this
Or, because, until actual evidence comes up that he's raped or assaulted women, I'll assume innocence until then.
Or, is that something only afforded to certain people, aka, the people you agree with?
>he's guilty
>just ignore it
...no, Ivanbot.
Take your meds
>~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*Russian asset*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~))
hope you have a nice day. nothing worse than idiots following blindly what the bbc wants them to spew.
How do you feel about Alec Baldwin being cleared of all charges? (Prepare for some chuddie mental gymnastics folks)
Of him shooting that woman? I think it's fricked up.
I, for one, believe that justice should be blind.
If a white cops kills a black suspect who actually did nothing wrong, then that cop should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
I don't know why you have this mental image in your head that everyone here is insanely biased.
>If I don't actually answer the question, he won't notice how much of a massive hypocrite I am.
He did answer the question, you dipshit.
No he didn't, he answered completely different questions than the one that was actually asked and then tried to change the subject to saint floyd.
You asked him about Alec Baldwin getting off for shooting that woman.
He said it was fricked up.
No he re-framed it and answered his own question to say its fricked up she got shot instead of actually addressing the fact that Baldwin got off consequence free, other than having pay for the husband's grand slam breakfast.
>You see this? Well, I'm a hypocrite about it.
>But that was actually you, so there.
Why do so many of you redditors have disassociative personality disorder?
>I'm starting to think
Don't worry, it doesn't show.
>I don't like the guy
>That automatically renders his god-given rights completely worthless
...and I'm the moronic one
Women can be creepy and perverted too, you dumb ass white knight incel.
None of the women who've falsely accused Brandt of this is going to frick you. you dumb frick.
imagine thinking the sex with problems is the one with the single creep rather than the one where a thousand women frick that single creep
for men, he is the outlier, for women they are the norm
>he is a creep
kek kys and go back you stupid roasty
they actually provided evidence for their claims unlike him who just cried witchhunt
Source?
it was revealed to me in a (white woman's) dream
>Why does it matter?
No one accused him of anything. BBC "journalists" went to a bunch of the people he used to frick and paid each of them a tidy sum of cash to answer some specific questions. Those answers were then collected and presented in a bunch of articles to be used as justification for when a ton of other, totally unrelated, corporations dropped Brand.
>A bunch of specific questions
Wich specific questions led to the answers "yup, he raped me", "yup he tried to rape me" and "yup i was sixteen and he raped me"?
Even if he is innocent, I hope he goes to jail for all of those shitty fricking movies he did at the height of his popularity.
You really hate despicable me, minions and all those sequels that much?
Gotta love how chuds ignore all his ties to the Rothschilds because they've been told to blindly support someone and they just do it KEK
Didn't the inquiry start around 2017/2018? Around peak MeToo? I don't know why it's taken this fricking long for it to all come out but still
I like some of his youtubes but frick that sex-haver
just another dude who brags about being spiritual blah blah blah after literally cooming so much he is sick of it, many such cases
>Why didn't they accuse him at the height of #MeToo?
Yeah, like you would've believed the accusations at that particular point in time lmao
You're saying you don't believe the charges now?
>muh dangerous vaccines
Shouldn't we have seen those mass deaths already? Should we wait two more weeks?
Shouldn't you analyze VAERS and excess deaths before trying to imply deaths haven't increased massively since vaccine mandates and increased vaccine complications?
70% increase in 20-40 yo women's heart attacks(which is rare as frick to begin with) but yeah, ~~*no correlation*~~
Couldn't that also be correlated with Covid itself?
Are you saying the vaccine is incapable of protecting against covid and its side effects?
Yes? My understand was it was supposed to lessen the severity of the flu once you get it.
And you consider dying of a heart attack to be less severe?
No anon I don't consider death to be less severe than death.
So are you saying the vaccine is incapable of protecting against covid and its side effects or are you saying that the spike protein is capable of causing severe complications so its probably not a good idea to turn your body into a spike protein production machine via the vaccine?
I'm saying it's possible the vaccine was not as effective as advertised, and that Covid itself has lasting effects.
So you refuse to comment on whether the lasting effects could be related to the spike protein since the whole point of the vaccine was to be a temporary gene therapy that turns your body into a spike protein production factory?
Of course that's a possibility. Never said it wasn't.
Except when you tried to pass the blame back to covid itself
instead of acknowledging what the vaccine is and how it relates to covid itself.
Do you understand how logic works? Something being a possibility does not preclude other possibilities.
Then why did you try to introduce some other possibility as a means to preclude harm obviously caused by vaccines?
>obviously
Because it's not obvious if other possibilities exist. Again, do I have to explain logic to you? It could be any of the following:
>the vax
>the flu itself
>a combination of both
No, the only possibility is that the vaccine is not actually as safe and effective as they claimed when they were mandating it if there are sill mass die offs to this day because it doesn't protect from severe complications and may actually contribute to them by encouraging the body to produce dangerous toxins that lead to heart attacks.
>No, the only possibility
no, I already outlined the possibilities here
and here
All those possibilities you outlined indicate that the vax is either not safe, not effective, or both.
I already said that twice.
Thanks for finally conceding that the excess deaths are a direct result of rushing to roll out a vaccine that was not safe and effective as originally advertised.
Are you dense? I said here already that is is possible the vaccine is not as effective as advertised
Why would I need to concede something I've already being arguing?
didn't it just come out that the CIA has been bribing people to get them to lie about the efficacy of the vaccine?
Yes and now you have finally conceded that it means they are not as safe as advertised either, so thanks for finally conceding on all points rather than trying to turn the tables to some other possibility while half ass conceding.
There's no concession. These are possibilities:
1. covid itself is the cause of heart attacks.
2. The vax is the cause of the heart attacks.
3. A combination of covid and the vax are the cause of heart attacks.
As I already stated: the vaccines may not have been as effective in lessening the effects of covid as advertised.
The ONLY thing we've been disagreeing about is you dismiss the possibility that the lasting effects covid itself are responsible for heart attacks. I keep all the possibilities open, including that one.
You missed the 4th possiblity, that the heart attacks have nothing to do with either the vax or with covid
true, but that seems very unlikely given the timing of events and absence of other plausible explanations for the heart attacks
*For argument's sake I'm taking it as a given that anon's original claim about a large rise in heart attacks is correct. I don't know for sure.
1. covid caused more respiratory issues than heart attacks
2. strains of covid have mutated to be less deadly each time and the shit around now is nothing
3. everybody for the last 2 years is meant to be "protected" from covd via vaccinations
>1. covid caused more respiratory issues than heart attacks
respiratory problems are known to cause heart problems
>2. strains of covid have mutated to be less deadly each time and the shit around now is nothing
I know. It doesn't mean there couldn't be lasting effects of having it when it was more severe.
>3. everybody for the last 2 years is meant to be "protected" from covd via vaccinations
Yes I know. I've addressed this multiple times.
that's a lot of cope to avoid the simplest solution
there's no cope in that post.
>you dismiss the possibility that the lasting effects covid itself are responsible for heart attacks
If that was the case all the no vaxxers would have them too. But that's not the case.
Simple heuristics point to the vaccine being the cause of it.
>If that was the case all the no vaxxers would have them too. But that's not the case
Isn't it? What evidence is there?
>What evidence is there?
Antivaxxers are still alive.
If the problem was covid related and not vaxx related there would be a specific set of citizens that would be dying instead and the media wouldn't lose their chance to report about it.
>Antivaxxers are still alive.
So are the vaxxed people, interesting
not as many as there should be
I guess I just have to take your word for it
No, you can take VAERS word for it.
Vaers doesn't provide evidence for that, as seen here
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaers-data-misrepresented-734354810823
>yellow journalism outlet outranks medical reporting system
trust the science indeed
>not understanding how VAERS works
Yeah, unlike you I do trust science
>Vaxxoid doesn't understand subtext and focus on the literal part of a text
You are also proof that vaccines cause autism
>Antivaxxers are still alive
Has that been studied? I'm open to the possibility that non-vaxed people (who also contracted covid) haven't been dying of similar complications or similar rates to that of people who got vaxed and also got covid, or who got vaxed but didn't get covid. But I wouldn't just assume it.
>no concession
>I actually already conceded
>actually there was never any conceding
See, this is why we have to keep harping because you are obviously lying through your teeth, one post you already conceding a long time ago, the next post you never conceded at all.
How is repeating something I already argued earlier a concession?
Because the argument was that you conceded.
no, the argument was as follows
>anon says the vaccines must be the reason
>I ask "couldn't it also be possible that covid itself is the culprit?"
>anon comes back with "So you're conceding that the vaccines didn't stop people getting covid or reduce its effects?
>I reply that I never said that wasn't a possibility
and so on....
This all goes back to anon assuming (wrongly) that I don't think the vaccines could be responsible. Note my words "ALSO be possible."
No it went like this.
>anon claims vaccines were and are safe and effective
>other anon points out that there are still many heart attacks
>you try to say that it probably not the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, but probably the fault of covid
>then you can't justify either the safety nor the effectiveness of the vaccine while still trying to maintain that the original shitposter wasn't just baiting about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.
>>you try to say that it probably not the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, but probably the fault of covid
you're putting words in my mouth now. This is what I said word for word:
>Couldn't that also be correlated with Covid itself?
There's no "probably" in there, and there's nothing about the vaccine being "safe & effective." You've projected that onto my post.
>while still trying to maintain that the original shitposter wasn't just baiting about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.
I've done nothing of the sort. More projection.
So you agree that based on the excess deaths and increased heart attacks and VAERS reposts that the vaccine is not safe (since it makes your body produce deadly toxins) nor effective (since it doesn't actually prevent severe covid complications or the spread of covid)?
I have no idea if that is true or not. I said it is possible. I also raised the possibility that covid itself could be responsible for heart problems. Raising that possibility led you to make a whole bunch of projections and assumptions about what I do or don't believe. I can imagine that might be because you think anyone who raises one possibility couldn't also believe the other is also possible.
are you a woman? this "anything is possible" homosexualry serves no purpose and is just annoying
>are you a woman?
no. I also never said anything is possible.
Not ruling out a possibility without good reason is a proper scientific approach; why would you associate that with being a woman
because with science, possibilities are meant to turn into probabilities and from there you assess a likely cause of problems, so you can ultimately find solutions
the land of endless possibilities without follow-through is the domain of women
No one is advocating no "follow-through" though. You don't just jump to the conclusion you're more emotionally inclined to believe just because you don't have enough data to make a more informed determination - THAT would be the behaviour of a woman.
>THAT would be the behaviour of a woman.
or a man with more egotistical pride than sense
>You don't just jump to the conclusion you're more emotionally inclined to believe
you mean like vaxies clinging to the hope that the made the right choice despite all evidence to the contrary?
Yeah. I'm not vaxed, and it's because I don't think something rushed out that quickly can have been satisfactorily proven to be safe. That's not the same as being convinced that it's unsafe.
cool story bro
I know, that's why I shared it.
Then why don't you drink bleach since that can't be ruled out as a cure for infections diseases and it would be good science to do so?
that's where the "without good reason" bit comes it.
You don't know, it could be the diseases fighting back against the bleach themselves that cause problems rather than the actual drinking of bleach, you can't eliminate any options if you want to do good science.
we already have plenty of knowledge about the danger of drinking bleach. Try again.
We literally put bleach in drinking water to sterilize it, maybe you just need to figure out the proper dosing.
Where's the contradiction?
Exactly there is none, so why aren't you drinking bleach to cure your ailments since it can't be ruled out scientifically?
that makes no sense. You've said that bleach can be used in tiny enough doses to sterilize it without poisoning people. it doesn't logically follow that someone should drink bleach to cure ailments.
Did you think you had a point?
>to sterilize it
*to sterilize water, correction
If it kills organism in the external environment, it should be able to kill them in your internal environment, you can't rule that out without testing out a variety of doses of bleach to cure your ailments.
non-sequitur again. you're not as clever as you think you are.
Wrong. If bleach kills harmful organisms anywhere, it can kill them everywhere, scientifically, so you can't rule out that proper doses of bleach should be able to cure any ailment related to any organism that can be killed by bleach.
>If bleach kills harmful organisms anywhere, it can kill them everywhere
not logical. something that could safely kill an organism in a petri-dish might not be also able to safely kill an organism in your stomach. Location, location, location.
>so you can't rule out that proper doses of bleach should be able to cure any ailment related to any organism that can be killed by bleach
Such things have been tested in controlled environment, usually on animals before it gets to humans. We not in a knowledge vacuum here.
Again, you're nowhere near as clever as you think, but you have too much pride to admit it was a dumb analogy.
>might not
But you said that you can't rule it out until you try.
>But you said that you can't rule it out until you try
no I didn't. quote it.
not me. this was me:
We already have enough good reason (knowledge) not to drink bleach in the hope that it cures any ailment.
It's also not the way any sensible person would chose to test such as thing
>I'll just drink this and hope for the best, I can always adjust the dosage as I go along
>We already have enough good reason (knowledge) not to drink bleach in the hope that it cures any ailment.
No because they put bleach in drinking water to prevent disease.
We've been over this before
That wasn't the anon you're currently arguing with, that was me. And just as he did, I'll draw your attention to the words "without good reason". High concentrations of hydrogen peroxide causing severe tissue damage on ingestion would be a pretty good reason.
You point out that in heavily diluted concentrations it can be safe, so why not try it? Well, how do you know it hasn't been tried in a clinical setting?
>I also raised the possibility that covid itself could be responsible
We went over this, if covid itself, specifically its spike protein, is still responsible for all those deaths, it means the vaccine is neither safe nor effective, so will you finally admit as much or just keep trying to say you actually don't know anything, but the vaccine still might be safe and effective like the shitposter said?
>it means the vaccine is neither safe nor effective
How many times do I have to explain to you that I never said it was? Quote the post where you think I said it was?
You seem to think you're arguing with someone who doesn't think the vaccine could be the culprit.
You literally just said you have no idea because you refuse to admit that it is neither safe nor effective while everything you post trying to sidestep the fact that it is clearly neither.
>because you refuse to admit that it is neither safe nor effective
I've been saying ever since my post here
that if covid is the cause of heart problems, then obviously the vax isn't as effective as it was sold as. I've also been saying it is possible the vax itself is the cause of heart problems (i.e. not safe).
This whole argument is just you seeing this post
(my first to you) and assuming I'm someone who thinks the vaccine must be safe and effective.
No, you kept saying you have no idea if it is safe or effective because of the possibility covid correlates with heart problems rather than saying it is definitely not safe nor effective because it uses toxic methods and doesn't actually prevent serious symptoms, so until you actually say it is not safe and not effective, I will keep pointing out that you are just using weasel words to half ass simp for the vax.
Well I'm not going anywhere so I'm quite happy to explain it again. Possibilities:
1. Covid is the cause of heart problems, in which case the vaccine obviously wasn't as effective or safe as advertised.
2. The vaccine alone is the cause of heart problems (I don't need to repeat 'safe & effective' again as it goes without saying).
3. A combination of both covid and the vaccine are the cause of heart problems (ditto).
At no point ITT have I said "I don't know if the vaccine is safe & effective." What I said was that I don't know if numbers 2 and 3 are the cause, and that it is possible that number 1 is the cause.
You said the vaccine's spike proteins are the cause of heart problems. I said I don't know if that is true, and that it could be #1. This is all we disagreed over.
Then just say that the vaccine is not safe and not effective since all those possibilities lead to that conclusion, until then you are still trying to weasel your way out of admitting that at no point was the gene therapy actually able to act in any vaccine capacity as advertised.
>Then just say that the vaccine is not safe and not effective
When did I say it wasn't? Please quote the post.
If you were vaxed, I'd suspect that the vaccine was responsible for your profound stupidity.
>the possibility that the lasting effects covid itself are responsible for heart attacks.
No, I am saying that is still largely a result of people being told they were safe and protected from covid by a vaccine that was neither safe nor effective at preventing covid.
It's certainly possible that people became complacent about covid due to believing the vaccines had them covered. But you'll note that in that scenario covid itself still has to be capable of causing heart attacks.
People who argue it was just a relatively harmless flu that didn't warrant vaccines or lock-downs would disagree with that.
>in that scenario covid itself still has to be capable of causing heart attacks.
Probably because of the spike proteins causing blood clots in the heart for a subset of the population which is why it is neither safe nor effective to use gene therapy to force your body to manufacture them.
Even relatively harmless viruses can cause fatal problems in some portion of the population, the masks, vaccines and lockdowns still wouldn't have solved the problem and now we will never really have any idea how toxic they are because entire industries have significant incentive to lie about it to protect their profits.
>Probably because of the spike proteins causing blood clots in the heart
Possibly. We've been over the possibilities already.
Yes but all possibilities we have gone over means that the vaccine is neither safe nor effective.
I never claimed otherwise. You simply assumed I thought that.
I love it when morons from here think they are scientific experts
it sounds like it makes you seethe
otherwise you wouldn't be commenting, trying to smear them
Not seething, just laughing at their narcissistic stupidity
>Not seething
>chudjak image
sure thing m8
Everything is a coincidence. Stop paying attention.
Why didn't he just follow the simple guidelines?
>unwanted compliment
Seems easier to just not speak with somebody at all if you can't be polite.
This makes it seem like you just can't talk to them at all.
He did. it was his clones that didn't follow the rules.
>unwanted attention
How the frick are you meant to ever meet a new person if giving someone attention can be sexual harassment?
just be handsome bro
dating apps, which by the way are designed to keep users on the platform as long as possible
this may be naive (in fact I'm almost sure it is) but to be successful convicted the woman probably has to at least signal that your approach is unwanted. Maybe.
At my workplace we were told by HR that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with asking a coworker on a date, it's when they turn you down and you persist in perusing them that it becomes sexual harassment.
you gotta save some of the good stuff for a sequel, or else it'll fall flat
"inquiry" is media weasel word for "they looked into it but didn't arrest him" btw
It's amazing to me that the left completely falls in line with big business corpo idealism while at the same time denouncing capitalism. They were completely broken after Occupy Wallstreet, the high IQ capitalists just put LGBT banners and DEI shit all over the place and now leftists are their fricking foot soldiers, for no money at all (which is good ?!)
I can never get progressives to tell me what their future looks like
Obama ran on marriage being between a man and a woman. Biden is hanging up transgender flags at the white house and hosting drag queen story hours
When I ask what the next big thing is, what the advertisements of 2033 pushing the boundaries will look like. My guess is more people missing limbs. Fat people who got a leg cut off from diabetes
The media can only take down one celebrity at a time.
He forced his nobby-wob into her minge?
I've always hated this guy but I'm trying to rise above the temptation to gloat over his downfall. Not because I'm trying to be a better person or because of any political/chud/antivax shit, it's just that these media hatchet-jobs are beginning to feel a little too co-ordinated.
It's like how people apparently knew about Weinstein for literally DECADES before he went down. Countless complaints and accusations from lots of different people, some of them celebrities themselves, yet nothing ever got done. None of it was even reported. Until one day it's like his downfall was magically greenlit and it's suddenly a feeding frenzy.
>Why didn't they accuse him at the height of #MeToo? Why would they wait until now?
Good question.
Yeah, the people proudly proclaiming how virtuous they are about Russell Brand getting taken down come off even more skeevy than he does, for the reasons you mention
>beginning to
Can you imagine shooting a load inside prime katy perry's womb? I don't blame the guy he basically went crazy, he says he was a sex addict and of course he was, most likely he raped and did all kinds of degen stuff, he basically chased the dragon after that
SLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG
She didn't accuse him of anything like that, her nickname for him was sexy rasputin because she thought he was a sex wizard.
Outstanding knockers
The west is like China but with a better PR department. Drift off the official narrative and you are in trouble.
After the jimmy saville scandal the police launched an investigation on celebrities for any sex crimes from the past which led to rolf harris being jailed yet nothing came up against brand despite all this evidence, strange isn't it
He is a plant. Promiscuity psyop. Now conspiracy psyop.
Well because now they regret it. They thought they fricked a popular well-educated but working class sounding bloke who was a socialist and told all their friends about it.
Turns out he was an predatory anti-vaxxer though who is irrelevant now. That means the loads that are still floating around in them are unwanted, which is basically rape anon.
he's more relevant than ever and these accusations have only made him more popular...but you knew that
He has been unpopular and irrelevant for ages which is why Katy Perry broke up with him... but you ~~*knew*~~ that
k if you think so
no one outside of the UK has seriously rated him as a comedian for more than a decade. he can do standup tours based on name recognition but that's it.
PROMISES THEY BREAK BEFORE THEYRE MADE
>chud
>antivaxxer
>is a groomer and/or sexpest
Why is it always like this?
He's a far-leftist and always has been.
I could have sworn he was named during metoo which is why he had to pivot to youtube instead of being in movies and dating pop stars.
it wasn't convenient then
he's still a shitbag who's always come across a condescending c**t so still happy it all came out
The Brand/Jimmy Savile stuff is not a good look, anon.
The British establishment is a protection racket just like Scientology. They have untold amounts of legit dirt on people that they keep hush as long as that person is willing to comply with the status quo. Just as Savile was exposed when he died and was no longer useful, Brand ceased to be useful as his outspoken anti-authority rhetoric developed a larger platform and so these allegations are coming to light. The media in the UK is full of sexual abusers and they will continue to be protected, but only as long as they continue to play by the rules.
>unironically shilling for Brand
?si=DPYRJ5UO9pV5GS5I
The people who predict that a societal collapse won't happen constantly forget that incidents like these cement the betrayal of govt as a concept in the minds of millions of people at a time.
And good thing, govt is the plague of the past 3 millennia. Every govt worker should be tortured to death, revived, and tortured again.
Govt is just what you call a gang that got big enough and strong enough to take over.
Yes.
They did the same thing to Andrew Tate
They don't like when you go against them, so they always take down the great men in these ways
1 Try and shut you up
2 Prison you
3 Kill you
im starting to believe this, assange, trump, tate, brand, it's starting to become a pattern
>tate
>great man
dude is a literal moron and i've never heard a more grotesque bastard accent than his
found the reddit israelite, hows the vaccine treating you?
>zoomies on here actually simp for glowie chinlet mutt tate
grim
he is a great man though, you're the type of person that would let your wife go out on "girls trips" and get fricked by black guys
>i've never heard a more grotesque bastard accent than his
this
for those who know
The vast majority of people that died """""from covid""""" actually died because hospitals didn't have enough respirators as they are penny pinching israelite fricks but notice how none of this gets mentioned anywhere because it would cost them money.
Instead they created a experimental wienertail that didn't follow any of the standard procedures to get it out there and people willingly took it for some reason.
Intubation with respirators and the wienertail of medicine to keep them comatose for the painful procedure was deadlier that not having respirators on hand.
>Intubation with respirators and the wienertail of medicine to keep them comatose for the painful procedure was deadlier
Deadlier than not breathing? Huh, interesting.
>this is the people telling you that the vaxx is safe and effective
>The vast majority of people that died """""from covid""""" actually died because hospitals didn't have enough respirators
that's like saying someone jumped off a skyscraper and didn't die from the impact, but because there wasn't a giant trampoline at the bottom to catch them
The respirators stopped people from dying and if there was enough respirators a lot less peopel would hve died. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Yes of course. The vaxx? Perfectly safe and effective but the respirators killed billions.
>Yes of course. The vaxx? Perfectly safe and effective but the respirators killed billions.
No, the medical industry is what kills billions especially when they are incentives for people dying with covid leading to medical error jumping to the 2nd leading cause of death during the pandemic.
>No, the medical industry is what kills billions
Yeah, that's my point.
No, your point was that if the medical industry just had more respirators they wouldn't have killed so many people for the sweet sweet covid money from the deep pockets of uncle sam.
>your point was that if the medical industry just had more respirators they wouldn't have killed so many people
Yes? My point is that the medical industry killed people, that's exactly what I said.
No you said if there was more medical industry with more respirators there would be less deaths when death by medical error has only increased with the GDP share of the medical industry.
>death by medical error has only increased with the GDP share of the medical industry
I'm talking specifically about the covid situation thought not about the history of healthcare as a whole though.
Read the room, you are in a covid thread.
Yes and in that specific case, people were dying because the medical industry was incentivized to use the deadliest therapy because they got paid for every death with covid rather than getting paid for everyone who they helped recover from covid.
That sounds stupid. If that was the case they could have just not treated people or straight up chalk every death to covid.
The fraud would be way too easy to detect its already very statistically suspect that they blamed all influenza deaths on covid.
>The fraud would be way too easy to detect
>its already very statistically suspect
So you argue that they can't do it because it would be too obvious but at the same time you argue that they did it and it's been all but proven. Try to stick to a coherent narrative.
Not even sure why you are replying to me still when it's clear I was attacking the healthcare system from the start which is what you've been doing too as far as I can tell.
Its easy to prove statistically, but not legally because they have different standards and burdens of proof.
You weren't attacking the healthcare system at first, you were defending them and saying that if we just bought them more respirators, they would have saved a bunch of people.
>Its easy to prove statistically, but not legally
So they can do it. While you stated otherwise.
>You weren't attacking the healthcare system at first, you were defending them
lol frick off already
>hospitals didn't have enough respirators as they are penny pinching israelite fricks but notice how none of this gets mentioned anywhere because it would cost them money
>So they can do it. While you stated otherwise.
No, I said that the fraud is already so easy to statistically prove that a legal case would be inevitable if they would have went any further with the fraud and tried to blame all deaths on covid for the gibs instead of just all respiratory diseases.
>I said that the fraud is already
But they didn't know this 3 years ago. You are making zero sense. Try to be fricking coherent with your schizo ramblings please.
If they already lied about it, then they already did it. You claim that they can't when it's been done already because it would be too obvious which it already is.
>But they didn't know this 3 years ago.
It takes time to collect statistics.
>Try to be fricking coherent with your schizo ramblings please.
I am being coherent, you just don't understand that statistical analysis and legal systems have completely different standards and burden of proof.
>You claim that they can't when it's been done already because it would be too obvious which it already is.
It is statistically obviously but there is not yet any group who has organized the evidence enough to take legal action against any obvious individual or group they can prove is responsible to legal standards for burden of proof, but if they went just a bit further with their fraud and blamed all deaths rather than all respiratory diseases, it would be much easier for some group to justify legal bills necessary in bringing cases against specific organizations.
>It takes time to collect statistics.
That's irrelevant to anything you or I have said.
>I am being coherent
You said that they did something (killing people with respirators, lol) that they could have done easier (by simply letting them die and chalk it to covid) but they didn't do it easier because it would be too obvious. But the thing you said they couldn't do because it would be too obvious, they did it, and it was too obvious. Yo are anything but coherent.
No I said the reason they didn't blame all deaths on covid instead of just flu and respiratory deaths was because it would be so easy to detect the fraud that legal cases would be inevitable.
>the reason they didn't blame all deaths on covid instead of just flu and respiratory deaths was because it would be so easy to detect
But they already did it and it was obvio9us. So your whole argument about it being no bueno to inflate covid death numbers crumbles. BECAUSE THEY DID EXACTLY THAT. What is so hard to understand?
>But they already did it and it was obvio9us
No, there were other types of deaths too, I only said the flu disappeared and they unnecessarily put people with respiratory problems on respirators, you must be confusing a bunch of different anons.
>No, there were other types of deaths too
Oh so you are now gonna play moron and pretend the discussion was about lying bout ALL the deaths that happened and not just the respirator ones?
Good, concession accepted.
Link the quote.
Here is what I said
in response to
You wasted two hours of your limited time on earth losing an internet argument because you thought a post reading "the healthcare system is a bunch of penny pinching israelite fricks" was a post defending the healthcare system. Let that sink in.
>The fraud would be way too easy to detect its already
>already
Covid happened 3 years ago. What happens now has no relevance to what people did back then.
>or straight up chalk every death to covid.
Have you been living in a cave the last few years? Or just listened to billionaire owned media that won't tell you inconvenient things? If you got covid, anything you'd die from in the next three months would be chalked up as a covid death. Car accident, suicide, cancer, if you had covid at any point, the death was covid related.
>I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Your post implied that people didn't die from covid but from a lack of medical intervention. When it was covid that made them critically ill and gave them need for that intervention. It's just a really weird thing to say.
>but from a lack of medical intervention
Because that is, in fact, the case. As proven by all the people that didn't die because they got the proper medical intervention.
Again, not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Right. So if I stab you in the chest in a way which is ultimately treatable but there are no ambulances available to take you, am I not guilty of murdering you? I get that their deaths were preventable, I'm not arguing that, I just find your semantics weird. It's really strange to say that they were not killed by the thing that literally killed them but by their lack of treatment.
>So if I stab you in the chest in a way which is ultimately treatable but there are no ambulances available to take you, am I not guilty of murdering you?
Yes you are because you inflicted the wound but the lack of treatment killed me as much as the wound itself.
For instance if you get attacked by someone and I don't help you calling the ambulance I would get in trouble.
The same people pulled the same stunt on Julian Assange.
Friendly reminder that current year leftists worship weapons manufacturers and global billionaires.
and the alt right worships leftie grifters islam and russia lmao
What the frick are you talking about, weirdo?
What a load of nonsense. You really did throw all the no-no words to the post in hopes something sticks didn't you?
>Why didn't they accuse him at the height of #MeToo?
He was still a lefty back then.
indeed, they were touting him as someone who could swing elections for Labour
I think he's innocent or it was just some dumb drunk shit that didn't go to the point of assault or rape
Imagine being a leftist and you start questioning why people are being vaccinated and locked up over the sniffles. If you’re a nobody you get deplatformed from social media for “false information”, if you’re a doctor you lose your license for prescribing antivirals, and if you’re a comedian you receive bogus rape allegations.
It goes for “conservatives” as well. Most of these people want the same bulshit war in Ukraine. The same bullshit lockdowns for the sniffle virus. The same bullshit censorship online. But hey, at least my side is winning because I identify as a brainwashed leftists. Go BLm and down with racism. All trannies are real women!