Saturday, October 14, 2023

Was the Covid "Cure" Deadlier than the Disease?


Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, "There Was No Pandemic"
June 22, 2023

This is radical.

The essay is based on my May 17, 2023 testimony for the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) in Ottawa, Canada, my 894-page book of exhibits in support of that testimony, and our continued research.

I am an accomplished interdisciplinary scientist and physicist, and a former tenured Full Professor of physics and lead scientist, originally at the University of Ottawa.

I have written over 30 scientific reports relevant to COVID, starting April 18, 2020 for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca/covid), and recently for a new non-profit corporation (correlation‑canada.org/research). Presently, all my work and interviews about COVID are documented on my website created to circumvent the barrage of censorship (denisrancourt.ca).

In addition to critical reviews of published science, the main data that my collaborators and I analyse is all‑cause mortality.

All-cause mortality by time (day, week, month, year, period), by jurisdiction (country, state, province, county), and by individual characteristics of the deceased (age, sex, race, living accomodations) is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.

Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. We have used it to detect and characterize seasonality, heat waves, earthquakes, economic collapses, wars, population aging, long-term societal development, and societal assaults such as those occurring in the COVID period, in many countries around the world, and over recent history, 1900-present.

Interestingly, none of the post-second-world-war Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention-promoted (CDC‑promoted) viral respiratory disease pandemics (1957-58, “H2N2”; 1968, “H3N2”; 2009, “H1N1 again”) can be detected in the all‑cause mortality of any country. Unlike all the other causes of death that are known to affect mortality, these so‑called pandemics did not cause any detectable increase in mortality, anywhere.

The large 1918 mortality event, which was recruited to be a textbook viral respiratory disease pandemic (“H1N1”), occurred prior to the inventions of antibiotics and the electron microscope, under horrific post-war public-sanitation and economic-stress conditions. The 1918 deaths have been proven by histopathology of preserved lung tissue to have been caused by bacterial pneumonia. This is shown in several independent and non-contested published studies.

My first report analysing all-cause mortality was published on June 2, 2020, at censorship-prone Research Gate, and was entitled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 - No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”. It showed that hot spots of sudden surges in all‑cause mortality occurred only in specific locations in the Northern-hemisphere Western World, which were synchronous with the March 11, 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Such synchronicity is impossible within the presumed framework of a spreading viral respiratory disease, with or without airplanes, because the calculated time from seeding to mortality surge is highly dependent on local societal circumstances, by several months to years. I attributed the excess deaths to aggressive measures and hospital treatment protocols known to have been applied suddenly at that time in those localities.

The work was pursued in greater depth with collaborators for several years and continues. We have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport. It also never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on vulnerable groups within the domestic population.

Here are my conclusions, from our detailed studies of all-cause mortality in the COVID period, in combination with socio-economic and vaccine-rollout data:
 
If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any excess mortality 
There was no pandemic causing excess mortality 
Measures caused excess mortality 
COVID-19 vaccination caused excess mortality 
Regarding the vaccines, we quantified many instances in which a rapid rollout of a dose in the imposed vaccine schedule was synchronous with an otherwise unexpected peak in all-cause mortality, at times in the seasonal cycle and of magnitudes that have not previously been seen in the historic record of mortality.

In this way, we showed that the vaccination campaign in India caused the deaths of 3.7 million fragile residents. In Western countries, we quantified the average all-ages rate of death to be 1 death for every 2000 injections, to increase exponentially with age (doubling every additional 5 years of age), and to be as large as 1 death for every 100 injections for those 80 years and older. We estimated that the vaccines had killed 13 million worldwide.

If one accepts my above-numbered conclusions, and the analyses that we have performed, then there are several implications about how one perceives reality regarding what actually did and did not occur.

First, whereas epidemics of fatal infections are very real in care homes, in hospitals, and with degenerate living conditions, the viral respiratory pandemic risk promoted by the USA‑led “pandemic response” industry is not a thing. It is most likely fabricated and maintained for ulterior motives, other than saving humanity.

Second, in addition to natural events (heat waves, earthquakes, extended large-scale droughts), significant events that negatively affect mortality are large assaults against domestic populations, affecting vulnerable residents, such as:
 
sudden devastating economic deterioration (the Great Depression, the dust bowl, the dissolution of the Soviet Union), 
war (including social-class restructuring), 
imperial or economic occupation and exploitation (including large-scale exploitative land use), and 
the well-documented measures and destruction applied during the COVID period.
Otherwise, in a stable society, mortality is extremely robust and is not subject to large rapid changes. There is no empirical evidence that large changes in mortality can be induced by sudden appearances of new pathogens. In the contemporary era of the dominant human species, humanity is its worst enemy, not nature.

Third, coercive measures imposed to reduce the risk of transmission (such as distancing, direction arrows, lockdown, isolation, quarantine, Plexiglas barriers, face shields and face masks, elbow bumps, etc.) are palpably unscientific; and the underlying concern itself regarding “spread” was not ever warranted and is irrational, since there is no evidence in reliable mortality data that there ever was a particularly virulent pathogen.

In fact, the very notion of “spread” during the COVID period is rigorously disproved by the temporal and spatial variations of excess all-cause mortality, everywhere that it is sufficiently quantified, worldwide. For example, the presumed virus that killed 1.3 million poor and disabled residents of the USA did not cross the more-than-thousand-kilometer land border with Canada, despite continuous and intense economic exchanges. Likewise, the presumed virus that caused synchronous mortality hotspots in March-April-May 2020 (such as in New York, Madrid region, London, Stockholm, and northern Italy) did not spread beyond those hotspots.

Interestingly, in this regard, the historical seasonal variations (12 month period) in all-cause mortality, known for more than 100 years, are inverted in the northern and southern global hemispheres, and show no evidence of “spread” whatsoever. Instead, these patterns, in a given hemisphere, show synchronous increases and decreases of mortality across the entire hemisphere. Would the “spreading” causal agent(s) always take exactly 6 months to cross into the other hemisphere, where it again causes mortality changes that are synchronous across the hemisphere? Many epidemiologists have long-ago concluded that person-to-person “contact” spreading of respiratory diseases cannot explain and is disproved by the seasonal patterns of all-cause mortality. Why the CDC et al. are not systematically ridiculed in this regard is beyond this scientist’s comprehension.

Instead, outside of extremely poor living conditions, we should look to the body of work produced by Professor Sheldon Cohen and co‑authors (USA) who established that two dominant factors control whether intentionally challenged college students become infected and the severity of the respiratory illness when they are infected:
 
degree of experienced psychological stress 
degree of social isolation
The negative impact of experienced psychological stress on the immune system is a large current and established area of scientific study, dutifully ignored by vaccine interests, and we now know that the said impact is dramatically larger in elderly individuals, where nutrition (gut biome ecology) is an important co-factor.

Of course, I do not mean that causal agents do not exist, such as bacteria, which can cause pneumonia; nor that there are not dangerous environmental concentrations of such causal agents in proximity to fragile individuals, such as in hospitals and on clinicians’ hands, notoriously.

Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an escaped bioweapon is irrelevant.

I do not mean that the Department of Defence (DoD) does not fund gain-of-function and bioweapon research (abroad, in particular), I do not mean that there are not many US patents for genetically modified microbial organisms having potential military applications, and I do not mean that there have not previously been impactful escapes or releases of bioweapon vectors and pathogens. For example, the Lyme disease controversy in the USA may be an example of a bioweapon leak (see Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons”).

Generally, for obvious reasons, any pathogen that is extremely virulent will not also be extremely contagious. There are billions of years of cumulative evolutionary pressures against the existence of any such pathogen, and that result will be deeply encoded into all lifeforms.

Furthermore, it would be suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen. Bioweapons are intended to be delivered to specific target areas, except in the science fiction wherein immunity from a bioweapon that is both extremely virulent and extremely contagious can be reliably delivered to one’s own population and soldiers.

In my view, if anything COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to massively, and repeatedly, rollout individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.

This is the same regime that practices wars of complete nation destruction and societal annihilation, under the cover of spreading democracy and women’s rights. And I do not mean China.

Fifth, again, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no need for any special treatment protocols, beyond the usual thoughtful, case-by-case, diagnostics followed by the clinician’s chosen best approach.

Instead, vicious new protocols killed patients in hotspots that applied those protocols in the first months of the declared pandemic.

This was followed in many states by imposed coercive societal measures, which were contrary to individual health: fear, panic, paranoia, induced psychological stress, social isolation, self-victimization, loss of work and volunteer activity, loss of social status, loss of employment, business bankruptcy, loss of usefulness, loss of caretakers, loss of venues and mobility, suppression of freedom of expression, etc.

Only the professional class did better, comfortably working from home, close to family, while being catered to by an army of specialised home-delivery services.

Unfortunately, the medical establishment did not limit itself to assaulting and isolating vulnerable patients in hospitals and care facilities. It also systematically withdrew normal care, and attacked physicians who refused to do so.

In virtually the entire Western World, antibiotic prescriptions were cut and maintained low by approximately 50% of the pre-COVID rates. This would have had devastating effects in the USA, in particular, where:
 
the CDC’s own statistics, based on death certificates, has approximately 50% of the million or so deaths associated with COVID having bacterial pneumonia as a listed comorbidity (there was a massive epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the USA, which no one talked about) 
the Southern poor states historically have much higher antibiotic prescription rates (this implies high susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia) 
excess mortality during the COVID period is very strongly correlated (r = +0.86) — in fact proportional to — state-wise poverty
Sixth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no public-health reason to develop and deploy vaccines; not even if one accepted the tenuous proposition that any vaccine has ever been effective against a presumed viral respiratory disease.

Add to this that all vaccines are intrinsically dangerous and our above-described vaccine-dose fatality rate quantifications, and we must recognize that the vaccines contributed significantly to excess mortality everywhere that they were imposed.

In conclusion, the excess mortality was not caused by any particularly virulent new pathogen. COVID so-called response in-effect was a massive multi-pronged state and iatrogenic attack against populations, and against societal support structures, which caused all the excess mortality, in every jurisdiction.

It is only natural now to ask “what drove this?”, “who benefited?” and “which groups sustained permanent structural disadvantages?”

In my view, the COVID assault can only be understood in the symbiotic contexts of geopolitics and large-scale social-class transformations. Dominance and exploitation are the drivers. The failing USA-centered global hegemony and its machinations create dangerous conditions for virtually everyone.

* * *

39 comments:

  1. Health Feedback: Analysis claiming to find COVID-19 vaccines killed 17 million people is highly flawed, doesn’t account for COVID-19 mortality surges.

    SOURCE: Denis Rancourt, The Epoch Times.

    Verdict: Incorrect.

    He published in the Epoch Times? That tells you all you need to know, right there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He put the figure at 13 million worldwide. Other "medical interventions" caused the remainder.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How many lives do "anti-biotics" save every year. Cut that number by 50%, and THAT's the likely number of people who died because they weren't treated for respiratory and other infections, cuz, "Duh, everyone knows that anti-biotics are useless against virus'"...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Antibiotics are among the most important discoveries of medical science. Analysis of infectious disease mortality data from the U.S. government reveals that antibacterial agents may save over 200,000 American lives annually, and add 5-10 years to U.S. life expectancy at birth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Minus: THAT's the likely number of people who died because they weren't treated for respiratory and other infections, cuz, "Duh, everyone knows that anti-biotics are useless against virus'"...

    So, people who should have been given antibiotics because they had a respiratory infection (in addition to covid) weren't?

    That sounds like bigly fake news to me. I'm supposed to believe doctors are that dumb?

    Minus: That's NOT what he said.

    It isn't?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is the analysis [of Denis G. Rancourt] flawed?

    Population-level analyses are relatively easy and quick to do, as the data is readily available. But it comes with lots of caveats. For example, one of the problems with this method is that the authors didn’t establish whether the people who died had been vaccinated, since their all-cause mortality data was population-level data, not individual-level data (ecological fallacy).

    Establishing that the people who died had been vaccinated in the first place should have been an essential first step in the analysis. Without ascertaining that this is the case, we cannot reliably draw causal inferences between vaccination and death. link

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's a quote from a report, not a person. where's the report link (not the media link)?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like anything like that it now citing... was interesting to Derpy... when he tryed to steamroll us here with "many millions who died BECAUSE OF dRump!!!". :-)))))

    That is the science of DEMNS -- they seeking for it ONLY when they feel that need to cover their follies. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  9. Qtard: ...when he tryed to steamroll us here with "many millions who died BECAUSE OF dRump!!!".

    Lie. I pointed out that the ineptness of the dotard administration response cost lives. Studies say 40% of the fatalities could have been prevented if we had competent leadership.

    Google says "As of April 26, 2023, over 1.1 million Americans had died from COVID".

    40 percent of 1.1 million isn't "many millions". Maybe qtards who are very bad at math think so?

    Qtard: That is the science of DEMNS -- they seeking for it ONLY when they feel that need to cover their follies.

    wtf? Give some examples. Explain them logically. Can you? Naaah. Qtard is BSing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. \\Lie. I pointed out that the ineptness of the dotard administration response cost lives.

    Really?

    As for me, that was just a lame propaganda.

    NOTHING like that talkabouts "Population-level analyses are relatively easy and quick to do, as the data is readily available. But it comes with lots of caveats." was provided.

    Only monkey-screams and accusation of being MAGA... of some foreigner from far-far-away.


    \\Studies say 40% of the fatalities could have been prevented if we had competent leadership.

    Yep.

    DEMN Science. ;-P



    \\40 percent of 1.1 million isn't "many millions". Maybe qtards who are very bad at math think so?

    Derpy pretending that it forgot OWN WORDS???

    Well, P-R-E-dick-table.



    \\wtf? Give some examples. Explain them logically. Can you? Naaah. Qtard is BSing.

    Idiot Derpy dunno what logic is, what example is, what explanation is... trying to use that words against much smarter opponent who know and use em, wisely.

    With usual effect. Explained to IT many-many times.

    What a shameless dumb ass. :-)))))

    But, continue-continue, little piggy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Qtard: Really?

    Yes.

    Qtard: As for me, that was just a lame propaganda.

    Of course. Because facts you don't like are "propaganda".

    Qtard: Only monkey-screams...

    Lie. Caveats follow "For example"...

    Qtard: ...and accusation of being MAGA... of some foreigner from far-far-away.

    wtf? Scientists don't know Qtard. Didn't make any accusations at all concerning it.

    Qtard: \\Studies say 40% of the fatalities could have been prevented if...\\Yep. DEMN Science.

    No. This was the determination of a "Lancet commission tasked with assessing Donald Trump’s health policy record". link

    The Lancet – Bias and Credibility. Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE. Factual Reporting: VERY-HIGH.

    Qtard: 40 percent of 1.1 million isn't "many millions"\\Derpy pretending that it forgot OWN WORDS???

    That is what you do. Forget your own words. Or pretend to. Proven by your continual demand for "quotes". When we both know you said it.

    But here idk wtf you're talking about. You can quote these "own words" you are talking about?

    Qtard: Well, P-R-E-dick-table.

    Of course. Because I am not a mind reader and I have no idea what "own words" you mean (or, more likely, imagined).

    Qtard: \\wtf? Give some examples. Explain them logically. Can you? Naaah. Qtard is BSing//Explained to IT many-many times.

    BSing confirmed.

    "That is the science of DEMNS -- they seeking for it ONLY when they feel that need to cover their follies"... Is bullplop 💩💩💩💩

    Science is from pro-science/highly trusted Lancet. That it is "science of Demns" is false.

    ReplyDelete
  12. \\Of course. Because facts you don't like are "propaganda".

    But-but-but... YOU are one who declare having intimate feelings toward facts. ;-P

    Like believing or not believing em. Like or don't like.

    Well... that is all about some feverish FAKE non-facts -- mere babbling of somebodies.

    True Facts -- you only dislike em. Deem em UNexisting. ;-P



    \\Lie. Caveats follow "For example"...

    In your feverish brain?

    Well, in time of your Turret's outbursts you may think that you doing Nobel Prize speach... :-)))))

    Only you WORDS fixed in for of comments -- do not confirm that.

    That's why you scrsming "I NEVER said it", isn't it?

    Because you feel ashamed from reading YOUR OWN WORDS, and thinking that somebody else have written em?

    EVEN if from under YOUR Blog Account? ;-P



    \\No. This was the determination of a "Lancet commission tasked with assessing Donald Trump’s health policy record". link

    So what?

    They cannot tell bullshit... because "that is Lancet!!!"

    Or... more like some politically-charged bullshit.

    To undermine political opponent.



    \\The Lancet – Bias and Credibility. Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE. Factual Reporting: VERY-HIGH.

    That tells NOTHING about credibility of ONE individual claim.

    Quite contrary -- when one trying to spread some BS -- it's naturally to use MOST CREDIBLE source.

    SAME as you do... when using argument of authority -- your pondering of "Locke said that!!!". ;-P

    That is known trick of those who spread Propaganda.

    VERY OLD trick.

    VERY obvious.



    \\That is what you do. Forget your own words. Or pretend to. Proven by your continual demand for "quotes". When we both know you said it.

    Naaah.

    Lame try to thrug own deficiencies at me.

    *I*... asking for QUOTES not because I do not remember my words -- quite contrary. I remember em very good.

    And as that... I asking for quote to show all misery of your claims -- YOU TOTALLY UNFIT to support your babbling with ANYTHING FACTUAL.

    But still trying. To babble itself out of itself spawned shit-talks.

    And that public demonstration of IDIOCY is so amazing...

    that I still talking with... it. :-))))



    \\But here idk wtf you're talking about. You can quote these "own words" you are talking about?

    Derpy-Derpy-Derpy... :-))))

    That is... somewhat cunning,even.

    You know FULL WELL that that topic was discussed LONG AGO.

    So... to provide such quotes -- I would need to dive deep into secess pool of your bullshit...

    And you will dismiss it as "I NEVER said it" anyway.

    So, why I should bother myself? ;-P



    \\Of course. Because I am not a mind reader and I have no idea what "own words" you mean (or, more likely, imagined).

    Because you are idiot?

    Or just have impared brain?

    And DO NOT (suddenly) remember that your screed when you tryed to accuse dRump in "many millions of dead" in the World...

    because some "listen to me, I'm an Expert!" provided such ESTIMATE? ;-P



    \\Qtard: \\wtf? Give some examples. Explain them logically. Can you? Naaah. Qtard is BSing//Explained to IT many-many times.

    \\BSing confirmed.

    With any QUOTE?

    Or... that "BSing confirmed" is self-conmfirming statment? ;-P



    \\Science is from pro-science/highly trusted Lancet.

    So what?

    Liars like to use trusted sources to spread their lies.




    \\That it is "science of Demns" is false.

    And IT can provide LOGICAL EXPLANATION how it can be false?


    ReplyDelete
  13. Qtard: \\Of course. Because facts you don't like are "propaganda"\\But-but-but... YOU are one who declare having intimate feelings toward facts.

    No.

    Qtard: Like believing or not believing em. Like or don't like.

    No. Only believing. Facts can't be disbelieved. Except by idiots like Qtard.

    Qtard: Well... that is all about some feverish FAKE non-facts -- mere babbling of somebodies. True Facts -- you only dislike em. Deem em UNexisting.

    No. That is what Qtard does. By calling them "Demn propaganda". Or by calling the source an "authority". And then falsely claiming that authorities always lie.

    Qtard: \\Lie. Caveats follow "For example"...\\In your feverish brain?

    In reality.

    Qtard: Well, in time of your Turret's outbursts you may think that you doing Nobel Prize speach... **moronic laughter**

    These "Turret's outbursts" are reference to Qtard's delusions. Not reality.

    Qtard: Only you WORDS fixed in for of comments -- do not confirm that.

    Of course not. Because there have never been any "turret's outbursts" from me.

    Qtard: That's why you scrsming "I NEVER said it", isn't it?

    That happens mostly in Qtard's delusions.

    Qtard: Because you feel ashamed from reading YOUR OWN WORDS, and thinking that somebody else have written em?

    No. I am not in the least bit ashamed of my true and honest words.

    Qtard: EVEN if from under YOUR Blog Account? ;-P

    Lie. "What Derpy really mean" not under my account.

    Qtard: \\No. This was the determination of a "Lancet commission tasked with assessing Donald Trump’s health policy record".\\So what? They cannot tell bullshit... because "that is Lancet!!!"

    I CAN tell bullshit. Your comments. Definite bullshit.

    Qtard: Or... more like some politically-charged bullshit.

    Evidence-based conclusions.

    Qtard: To undermine political opponent.

    No. To help avoid same mistakes in the future.

    Qtard: \\The Lancet – Bias and Credibility. Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE. Factual Reporting: VERY-HIGH\\That tells NOTHING about credibility of ONE individual claim.

    Does. That it can be trusted.

    Qtard: Quite contrary -- when one trying to spread some BS -- it's naturally to use MOST CREDIBLE source.

    Credible source used to reveal truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Qtard: SAME as you do... when using argument of authority -- your pondering of "Locke said that!!!".

    So authorities are always wrong? HOW did they become an authority then?

    Qtard: That is known trick of those who spread Propaganda.

    Qtard's trick. Dismissing facts because an authority made it.

    Qtard: VERY OLD trick. VERY obvious.

    Very obvious Qtard is an idiot. Thinks it can call facts an "appeal to authority" and that makes the facts false. Idiot thinks that is somehow proof the authority is lying for political reasons.

    Qtard: \\That is what you do. Forget your own words. Or pretend to. Proven by your continual demand for "quotes". When we both know you said it.\\Naaah.

    Yes.

    Qtard: *I*... asking for QUOTES not because I do not remember my words -- quite contrary. I remember em very good.

    So, you admit you lie when you say (by asking for a quote) "I never said it".

    Qtard: And as that... I asking for quote to show all misery of your claims -- YOU TOTALLY UNFIT to support your babbling with ANYTHING FACTUAL.

    Qtard's own words aren't factual. I believe it.

    Qtard: \\But here idk wtf you're talking about. You can quote these "own words" you are talking about?\\You know FULL WELL that that topic was discussed LONG AGO. So... to provide such quotes -- I would need to dive deep into secess pool of your bullshit...

    If I said it you could quote it. You refuse because you lied. I never said anything about millions of US citizens dying due to the dotard administration's inepet response to the pandemic.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Correction to above... "inept response", not "inepet response".

    Qtard: And you will dismiss it as "I NEVER said it" anyway.

    Maybe. If you lie about the quote. Give fake quote. Try a "what Derpy really mean". But... I dunno what quote you're talking about.

    It doesn't matter though. Because you CONFIRMED I never said it. But refusing to give a quote. Or even describe what it is you think I said.

    Qtard: So, why I should bother myself?

    You won't. Because you're a liar.

    Qtard: \\Of course. Because I am not a mind reader and I have no idea what "own words" you mean (or, more likely, imagined)\\Because you are idiot?

    So, when you ask for quotes from me (of your own words) it's because you're an idiot? Sounds like you just confessed that.

    Qtard: Or just have impared brain? And DO NOT (suddenly) remember that your screed when you tryed to accuse dRump in "many millions of dead" in the World...

    The whole world? That case could be made. Dotard pulled US scientists working in China who could have stopped it from spreading.

    Qtard: because some "listen to me, I'm an Expert!" provided such ESTIMATE?

    US slashed CDC staff inside China prior to coronavirus outbreak. The Trump administration cut staff by more than two-thirds at a key US public health agency operating inside China, as part of a larger rollback of US-funded health and science experts on the ground there leading up to the coronavirus outbreak. ... The CDC's China headcount has shrunk to around 14 staffers, down from approximately 47 people since President Donald Trump took office in January 2017, the documents show. The four people, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the losses included epidemiologists and other health professionals. ... "You have to consider the possibility that our drawdown made this catastrophe more likely or more difficult to respond to".

    I dunno about estimates of people who wouldn't have died if the dotard administration had not done this. You CLAIM I gave such estimates previously? You can QUOTE me giving such an estimate? So far you're refusing.

    Qtard: \\wtf? Give some examples. Explain them logically. Can you? Naaah. Qtard is BSing\\Explained to IT many-many times.\\BSing confirmed. With any QUOTE?

    Quote: "Explained to IT many-many times".

    What times? Quote one of these times.

    Qtard: \\Science is from pro-science/highly trusted Lancet\\So what?

    Qtard dunno what "highly trusted" means? Qtard's idiocy is not my problem.

    Qtard: \\That it is "science of Demns" is false\\And IT can provide LOGICAL EXPLANATION how it can be false?

    Lancet isn't US based. It is based (and was founded) in England. Democrats are a US political party.

    ReplyDelete
  16. \\Qtard: \\Of course. Because facts you don't like are "propaganda"\\But-but-but... YOU are one who declare having intimate feelings toward facts.

    \\No.

    "I believe in facts" it's "I NEVER said it"? AGAIN???!!!!! :-))))))))

    Or... what is WAY more plausible. And IN ALL ACCORDANCE with given FACTS -- this "No" is just a NewSpeak "Yes". ;-P



    \\No. Only believing.

    SHOW it... how YOUR bieveing in FACT -- that Sun rising in the morning, means anything. ;-P

    But you will not. Because that is absurd.

    And you are religious bigot. Who "credo ipso absurdum". ;-P



    \\Facts can't be disbelieved. Except by idiots like Qtard.

    True.

    And IT doing all of the time -- like when it declaring "dRump is guilty". Or that "Palestinians is innocent".

    And IT even ADMITTING it./.. though ONLY through own alter-ego "Qtard"... it throws all conflicting feeling/admission at.

    Well... ordinary thing for a religious bigots. ;-P



    \\Qtard: Well... that is all about some feverish FAKE non-facts -- mere babbling of somebodies. True Facts -- you only dislike em. Deem em UNexisting.

    \\No. That is what Qtard does

    And you can give a FACT? Provide a factual QUOTE? Naaah. :-)))))

    Because that all if in your feverish mind of Religious Bigot. ;-P



    \\By calling them "Demn propaganda". Or by calling the source an "authority". And then falsely claiming that authorities always lie.

    :-))))))))

    Self-revealing derping. Yawn. :-))))

    Like in that "authorities always lie" -- that is YOU OWN idea, De-Ru-Pi.

    Your own and nobody else.

    Or... you can work your butt out -- and try to find QUOTE of MY words confirming such egregious claim.

    But you will not -- because that is just a figment of your idioticly feverish mind of a Religious Bigot. ;-P



    \\Qtard: \\Lie. Caveats follow "For example"...\\In your feverish brain?

    \\In reality.

    In Reality... that is all are "reality" produced by your feverish brain of Religious Bigot.

    And *I*... *DO* agree with... it. It's quite possible to be THIS MUCH feverish, and idiotic, and percieve Reality THIS WAY. ;-P

    Because... there is numerous example AMONG Religious Bigots... like that acid-inspired idea about "World standing on Elephants, and that Elephants are on a Turtle". :-))))



    \\These "Turret's outbursts" are reference to Qtard's delusions. Not reality.

    WHY you then UNABLE to give EVEN ONE quote CNFIRMING such a feverish claims, ahh?? :-))))

    MY CLIAMS -- ALL based on ability to percieve Reality... that's why I ABLE to point at FACTS -- provide QUOTES.

    Your moronic claims -- based on small "reality" of your feverish brain... that's why you CAN'T.

    Because?

    Because what YOU "see" as "reality" -- that is just a delusion, produced by not that healthy brain of... its. ;-P



    \\Qtard: Only you WORDS fixed in for of comments -- do not confirm that.

    \\Of course not. Because there have never been any "turret's outbursts" from me.

    THIS IS... cutting out of contexts. O.K.

    And you DID IT, deliberately. To make it sound OPPOSITE to what that words was written to mean.

    And that is... usual miserly tricks of Religious Bigots. Like when they trying to cover their moronity with torn out of context excerpts from scripture(s).

    So... it's not surprise that IT... is so proficient with it. Religious Bigot is just showing true colors of its religious bigotry.

    Yawn.


    ReplyDelete

  17. \\Qtard: That's why you scrsming "I NEVER said it", isn't it?

    \\That happens mostly in Qtard's delusions.

    Yap-yap-yap.

    MY "delusions".

    That can be Ctrl-Fed. And copy-pasted.

    Yawn.

    Can you do that with your "reality", derp?

    Naaah. Cause IT ALL INSIDE your feverish brain. And we still have NO tech to copy-paste from/into brain directly. ;-P



    \\Qtard: Because you feel ashamed from reading YOUR OWN WORDS, and thinking that somebody else have written em?

    \\No. I am not in the least bit ashamed of my true and honest words.

    Yap.

    As designed.

    Religious Bigots ALWAYS are proud of their religious bigotry.

    Yawn.



    \\Qtard: EVEN if from under YOUR Blog Account? ;-P

    \\Lie. "What Derpy really mean" not under my account.

    Yap.

    And You lying non-stop. As ANY other Religious Bigot.

    Because this EXCERPT of my words was about QUOTES of your words.

    Or what? Do you mean that words you babbling/writing here... is just meaningless???? :-)))))

    Well, that is quite plausible too. ;-P Kudos! For admitting that.



    \\I CAN tell bullshit. Your comments. Definite bullshit.

    OUGH COUGHs YOU ARE... you spouting bull shit nearly all of the time.

    And trying to cover in your bullshit just everything. Like my comments and all.

    True.

    My little piggy.

    U R so-o CAPABLE...




    \\Evidence-based conclusions.

    "Evidance" based on "somebody-somebody saying something-something"? ;-P



    \\Qtard: To undermine political opponent.

    \\No. To help avoid same mistakes in the future.

    Yep.

    Such a silly try to undermine political opponents -- really was mistake.

    True.

    But... hardly DEMNs can refreine from doing such mistakes. As true religious bigots, they like to repeat their mistakes. Again and again. ;-P



    \\Does. That it can be trusted.

    For sure.

    That's what LIAR would like to perpetuate -- trust to its baseless words. ;-P



    \\Credible source used to reveal truth.

    tch-tch-tch.

    FACTS used to reveal Truth.

    Facts and ONLY facts.

    "Credible sources"? That is what LIARs trying to ABUSE, to spread their lies.



    \\So authorities are always wrong?

    YOU said that.

    And that is FACT.



    \\HOW did they become an authority then?

    How smart aces became smart aces?

    That is not for your silly bigoted mind to grok. ;-P

    But... I'll make myself a pleasure, and will say it to you. For more lulz.

    They POINTING AT FACT. And they making LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS out of em. ;-P

    But that is... purely IMPOSSIBLE to grok... for such a Religious Bigot as you De-Ru-Pi ARE. :-)))))


    ReplyDelete

  18. \\Very obvious Qtard is an idiot. Thinks it can call facts an "appeal to authority" and that makes the facts false. Idiot thinks that is somehow proof the authority is lying for political reasons.

    I like how this idiot cringing. :-))))))

    Unable to groke simple things.

    Do cringe MOAR! :-))))))



    \\So, you admit you lie when you say (by asking for a quote) "I never said it".

    I understand why you asking that.

    Because that is what YOU do. Nearly all of the time.

    But... naaah. Try to guess one more time. ;-P




    \\Qtard: And as that... I asking for quote to show all misery of your claims -- YOU TOTALLY UNFIT to support your babbling with ANYTHING FACTUAL.

    \\Qtard's own words aren't factual. I believe it.

    Your alter-ego's words?

    Quite probably.

    Only... I dunno when that is YOUR, and when it's your alter-ego words.

    Cause I am not inside your feverish brain. And cannot know it for sure -- like you do.

    But well, you seems like THAT feverish, that you DUNNO it... itself, too. :-)))))



    \\Qtard: \\But here idk wtf you're talking about. You can quote these "own words" you are talking about?\\You know FULL WELL that that topic was discussed LONG AGO. So... to provide such quotes -- I would need to dive deep into secess pool of your bullshit...

    \\If I said it you could quote it. You refuse because you lied. I never said anything about millions of US citizens dying due to the dotard administration's inepet response to the pandemic.

    Ho-ho-ho... not that primitive lie this time. Kudos!

    You now trying to burgeone on that -- that it would be tedious for me to find that quote.

    And also you "cunningly", but still way too obvious -- because I STATED directly -- that was "somebody-somebody's" ESTIMATE... about people dying in WHOLE World.

    And You tryed to accuse dRump... in causing "estimated deaths"... not even happened YET.

    But.

    With this tricks in tricks... YOU ONLY REVEALING -- that that all LIES -- was FULLY conscious. And DELIBERATE.

    Thank you De-Ru-Pi.

    That was piece of puzzle that was lacking. ;-P



    \\Qtard: And you will dismiss it as "I NEVER said it" anyway.

    \\Maybe. If you lie about the quote. Give fake quote. Try a "what Derpy really mean". But... I dunno what quote you're talking about.

    YOU... revealed that YOU -- KNOW.

    That moment when you tryed to SUBVERT it from "all World" into "in USA only". ;-P

    Silly-silly derp. Still not know how to lie... with not revealing its lies RIGHT AWAY! :-))))

    Well, but you are that idiot. So, no surprise in it. ;-P



    \\It doesn't matter though. Because you CONFIRMED I never said it. But refusing to give a quote. Or even describe what it is you think I said.

    Silly try. :-)))))

    You ALREADY revealed way too much about... itself.

    You not just lying because you are idiot. Have poor mind. Memory.

    You are LYING SCUM... and that's why you behave so idioticly -- because cought EVEN itself into web of that lies.


    ReplyDelete

  19. \\Qtard: So, why I should bother myself?

    \\You won't. Because you're a liar.

    And you can point to MY lie? PROVE it being lie, with LOGIC and FACTS?

    Yawn.



    \\So, when you ask for quotes from me (of your own words) it's because you're an idiot? Sounds like you just confessed that.

    So? What this conclusion makes of you????

    Whe you asking for quotes of YOUR OWN WORDS just said?

    Or scream "I NEVER said it"... to just recently said words?

    :-)))))))

    Really, U R SOOO silly.

    And that'll be SOOO surprising.

    If I would not know that U R I-D-I-O-T... from long ago.



    \\The whole world? That case could be made. Dotard pulled US scientists working in China who could have stopped it from spreading.

    :-))))))))

    :-))))))))

    :-)))))))

    YOU.

    JUST NOW.

    Just disavowed all that dumb drum beating -- that you NEED that QUOTE... because you like NOT REMEMBER what you did said...

    But HERE you just DOUBLED-DOWN on the same idiocy.

    With adding more colors to it EVEN.

    :-)))))



    \\You CLAIM I gave such estimates previously? You can QUOTE me giving such an estimate? So far you're refusing.

    What a preposterous idiocy.

    Of course not. You are idiot -- and CANNOT give such estimates. :-))))

    And that was properly STATED by me -- that was some link of some "expert" estimate -- YOU, was UNABLE to analyse SCIENTIFICALLY. ;-P

    Because U R I-D-I-O-T.

    But tryed to pound AT... as if it was FACT.

    While "estimates" -- freakingly CANNOT be "facts".

    Because... they are about things that STILL NOT HAPPENED. And most probably NEVER WILL.


    \\What times? Quote one of these times.

    Like... in this comment? ;-P

    Many explanations given to... it, here.



    \\Qtard: \\Science is from pro-science/highly trusted Lancet\\So what?

    \\Qtard dunno what "highly trusted" means? Qtard's idiocy is not my problem.

    Yawn.

    Idiot Derpy just revealed that it DUNNO Science.

    It seems like thinking that science it's about "highly trusted"... things.

    While that is QUITE CONTRARY INDEED -- about highly DOUBTED... and meny-many times DOUBLE-CHECKED, REPRODUCED and CONFIRMED WITH EXPERIMENTS things.

    But... it will show how it CANNOT grok it... because -- simply an idiot. IT. IS. ;-P



    \\Qtard: \\That it is "science of Demns" is false\\And IT can provide LOGICAL EXPLANATION how it can be false?

    \\Lancet isn't US based. It is based (and was founded) in England. Democrats are a US political party.

    So what??? :-))))))

    ReplyDelete
  20. Qtard: But-but-but... YOU are one who declare having intimate feelings toward facts.\\No\\"I believe in facts" it's "I NEVER said it"? AGAIN???!!!!! **moronic laughter**

    NO. I NEVER said I have an intimate feeling toward facts. I don't even know wtf that means.

    Qtard: Or... what is WAY more plausible. And IN ALL ACCORDANCE with given FACTS -- this "No" is just a NewSpeak "Yes".

    No.

    Qtard: \\No. Only believing\\SHOW it... how YOUR bieveing in FACT -- that Sun rising in the morning, means anything. But you will not. Because that is absurd.

    It wouldn't be absurd to NOT believe the sun rises in the morning?

    Qtard: And you are religious bigot. Who "credo ipso absurdum".

    Qtard is a PROVEN religious bigot. Qtard is PROUD of its religious bigotry toward Muslims.

    Qtard: \\Facts can't be disbelieved. Except by idiots like Qtard.\\True.

    Thank you for agreeing you are an idiot. Now we're getting somewhere. Until you deny saying it.

    Qtard: And IT doing all of the time -- like when it declaring "dRump is guilty". Or that "Palestinians is innocent".

    I never said ALL Palestinians are innocent. But Qtard has said they're all accomplices. Even Palestinian babies were in on planning the attacks.

    Qtard: And IT even ADMITTING it./.. though ONLY through own alter-ego "Qtard"... it throws all conflicting feeling/admission at.

    No. I have no alter ego called "Qtard". Qtard is YOUR nickname. When I reference "Qtard", I'm talking about YOU. I'm NOT talking about me.

    Qtard: Well... ordinary thing for a religious bigots.

    Oh. Ok, you're acknowledging that YOU are Qtard. Finally.

    Qtard: Well... that is all about some feverish FAKE non-facts -- mere babbling of somebodies. True Facts -- you only dislike em. Deem em UNexisting.\\No. That is what Qtard does\\And you can give a FACT? Provide a factual QUOTE? Naaah.

    There are innocent Palestinians. That's a fact the religious bigot Qtard dislikes intensely.

    Qtard: Because that all if in your feverish mind of Religious Bigot.

    That all Palestinians are "accomplices"? Yeah. That's what the religious bigot Qtard thinks.

    Qtard: \\By calling them "Demn propaganda". Or by calling the source an "authority". And then falsely claiming that authorities always lie\\ **moronic laughter** Like in that "authorities always lie" -- that is YOU OWN idea, De-Ru-Pi.

    Not my idea. YOUR idea. Even though you try to shift blame to your alter ego, De-Ru-Pi.

    Qtard: Your own and nobody else.

    Nope. That is your idea. Not just the idea of your alter ego, "De-Ru-Pi" either.

    Qtard: Or... you can work your butt out -- and try to find QUOTE of MY words confirming such egregious claim.

    The one where you dismiss John Locke's writings by calling my citing of him as an "appeal to authority".

    Qtard: But you will not -- because that is just a figment of your idioticly feverish mind of a Religious Bigot.

    Oh, you didn't say it?

    Qtard: \\Lie. Caveats follow "For example"...\\In your feverish brain?\\In reality\\In Reality... that is all are "reality" produced by your feverish brain of Religious Bigot.

    No, not YOUR reality. Actual reality.

    Qtard: And *I*... *DO* agree with... it. It's quite possible to be THIS MUCH feverish, and idiotic, and percieve Reality THIS WAY.

    Yeah. Your perception of reality is definitely not in line with actual reality.

    Qtard: Because... there is numerous example AMONG Religious Bigots... like that acid-inspired idea about "World standing on Elephants, and that Elephants are on a Turtle".

    Qtard drops acid? Were you high on acid when you replied to my comment?

    ReplyDelete
  21. \\Qtard: But-but-but... YOU are one who declare having intimate feelings toward facts.\\No\\"I believe in facts" it's "I NEVER said it"? AGAIN???!!!!! **moronic laughter**

    \\NO. I NEVER said I have an intimate feeling toward facts. I don't even know wtf that means.

    But YOU declared it!!! "I beleive in facts".

    That is THE SAME intimate feeling other religious bonkers declare when they say they "believe in Jesus". Or "belieng Muhamed... that there is Allah". Or whatever.

    Or what???

    You DISAVOW that moronic claim? ;-P



    \\Qtard: Or... what is WAY more plausible. And IN ALL ACCORDANCE with given FACTS -- this "No" is just a NewSpeak "Yes".

    \\No.

    Thanky-thanky for providing YET ONE confirmation. ;-P



    \\Qtard: \\No. Only believing\\SHOW it... how YOUR bieveing in FACT -- that Sun rising in the morning, means anything. But you will not. Because that is absurd.

    \\It wouldn't be absurd to NOT believe the sun rises in the morning?

    Why?

    Of course it's absurd. BOTH WAYS.

    As believing -- it's our INNER feeling. It have NOTHING to do with FACTS.

    Because that feeling is IN YOUR DUMB HEAD... and Sun -- it's OVER THERE.

    They NOT SITUATED in one place EVEN.



    \\Qtard is a PROVEN religious bigot. Qtard is PROUD of its religious bigotry toward Muslims.

    :-)))))))

    That's why I stirring you. To make fun from seeing such an idiotic retorts.

    WAT??? HOW???

    Nobody knows. Even one idiot which spouted that non-sense.



    \\Qtard: \\Facts can't be disbelieved. Except by idiots like Qtard.\\True.

    \\Thank you for agreeing you are an idiot. Now we're getting somewhere. Until you deny saying it.

    Idiot produced YET ONE faked quote... and became so proud of it. :-)))))

    Thinking it could fool me? :-)))))

    Sway me emotionally??? :-))))

    Yeah, you swayed me... by make me Laughing Out Loud.

    Continue-continue, my little piggy. :-))))



    \\Qtard: And IT doing all of the time -- like when it declaring "dRump is guilty". Or that "Palestinians is innocent".

    \\I never said ALL Palestinians are innocent. But Qtard has said they're all accomplices. Even Palestinian babies were in on planning the attacks.

    Bull Shit.

    And "I NEVER said". AGAIN! :-))))

    This idiot. Unable to earn.

    Well. Naturally.



    \\Qtard: And IT even ADMITTING it./.. though ONLY through own alter-ego "Qtard"... it throws all conflicting feeling/admission at.

    \\No. I have no alter ego called "Qtard". Qtard is YOUR nickname. When I reference "Qtard", I'm talking about YOU. I'm NOT talking about me.

    Then why you when you... as you just said, talking about me -- describing YOUR OWN behavior? ;-P



    \\Qtard: Well... ordinary thing for a religious bigots.

    \\Oh. Ok, you're acknowledging that YOU are Qtard. Finally.

    And how this idiotic "conclusion" relates to anything in that QUOTE given????

    Derpy the Idiot just SHOWED YET ONE time that it don't get it -- why QUOTES needed. :-))))



    \\There are innocent Palestinians. That's a fact the religious bigot Qtard dislikes intensely.

    :-)))))))

    Innocent? Like not engaged in sexual intercourse?

    Well, naturally. If palestinians do not practice sex with children.


    \\That all Palestinians are "accomplices"? Yeah. That's what the religious bigot Qtard thinks.

    :-))))))


    ReplyDelete

  22. \\Qtard: \\By calling them "Demn propaganda". Or by calling the source an "authority". And then falsely claiming that authorities always lie\\ **moronic laughter** Like in that "authorities always lie" -- that is YOU OWN idea, De-Ru-Pi.

    \\Not my idea. YOUR idea. Even though you try to shift blame to your alter ego, De-Ru-Pi.

    Yawn.

    You are free to give QUOTE of MY words.

    Where'd *I* claime something like that YOUR moronic claim that -- "authorities always lie"

    But... you will find (with Ctrl-Fing) that that is ONLY YOUR WORDS.

    But... you will only habitually scream "I NEVER said it", yes, De-Ru-Pi?

    Yawn.



    \\Qtard: Your own and nobody else.

    \\Nope. That is your idea. Not just the idea of your alter ego, "De-Ru-Pi" either.

    Then... pin me with QUOTE. ;-P

    That that was MY WORDS. :-))))



    \\Qtard: Or... you can work your butt out -- and try to find QUOTE of MY words confirming such egregious claim.

    \\The one where you dismiss John Locke's writings by calling my citing of him as an "appeal to authority".

    Yeah?

    So what?

    Locke's words -- it's NOT your words.

    Or... there can be ambiguities about that OBVIOUS FACT??? In your feverish mind.

    Maybe you think (like some totally nutty religious bonkers) that when they repeating "Jesus's words"... that "Jesus itself talk with our mouth"????

    That'll be HILLARIOUS!!! :-)))))

    Go! Said it! :-))))



    \\Oh, you didn't say it?

    And what? I "didn't say"? ;-P

    Can you provide a QUOTE? :-))))



    \\No, not YOUR reality. Actual reality.

    Yap.

    I GET IT.

    "Actual reality" of your feverish mind. ;-P



    \\Yeah. Your perception of reality is definitely not in line with actual reality.

    Yap.

    My outlook on Reality is much more clear then that "reality" produced by your feverish brain.

    Though... it still not complete. That's why I, as any other smart ace, need to be sceptical... about everything.

    But for dumb asses like you -- whatever your feverish mind proposes to you as "reality"... you gobbling it out as "Only True" reality.

    I get it.

    Really, I do.



    \\Qtard: Because... there is numerous example AMONG Religious Bigots... like that acid-inspired idea about "World standing on Elephants, and that Elephants are on a Turtle".

    \\Qtard drops acid? Were you high on acid when you replied to my comment?

    Oh... so your alter-ego "Qtard" sitting on acid? :-)))))

    ReplyDelete
  23. Qtard: But-but-but... YOU are one who declare having intimate feelings toward facts.\\...I NEVER said I have an intimate feeling toward facts. I don't even know wtf that means.\\But YOU declared it!!! "I beleive in facts".

    LIE. I never declared I have an "intimate feeling toward facts".

    Qtard: That is THE SAME intimate feeling other religious bonkers declare when they say they "believe in Jesus". Or "belieng Muhamed... that there is Allah". Or whatever.

    No. Not at all. Religious faith-based belief isn't the same as evidence-based belief. I have explained this many times. Qtard is obviously way too dumb to understand. Never will. Can't, due to a defective brain.

    Qtard: You DISAVOW that moronic claim?

    Impossible. I can't disavow a claim I never made about an "intimate feeling toward facts".

    Qtard: Or... what is WAY more plausible. And IN ALL ACCORDANCE with given FACTS -- this "No" is just a NewSpeak "Yes".\\No.\\Thanky-thanky for providing YET ONE confirmation.

    Thanking yourself for your delusion that there was a "confirmation" from me? Well, I don't give a shit. My "no" still a "no" and NOT a NewSpeak "yes".

    Qtard: \\It wouldn't be absurd to NOT believe the sun rises in the morning? \\Of course it's absurd. BOTH WAYS. As believing -- it's our INNER feeling. It have NOTHING to do with FACTS. Because that feeling is IN YOUR DUMB HEAD... and Sun -- it's OVER THERE. They NOT SITUATED in one place EVEN.

    That's a feeling in your dumb head. That facts you don't like are "Demn propaganda".

    Qtard: \\Qtard is a PROVEN religious bigot. Qtard is PROUD of its religious bigotry toward Muslims.\\**moronic laughter** That's why I stirring you. To make fun from seeing such an idiotic retorts.

    You laugh at your idiotic retorts? OK. Me too. Sometimes. Mostly I just shake my head. Say to myself "I can't believe the level of stupidity being displayed by this moron".

    Qtard: WAT??? HOW??? Nobody knows. Even one idiot which spouted that non-sense.

    I dunno what you're even babbling about.

    Qtard: \\Facts can't be disbelieved. Except by idiots like Qtard.\\True.\\Thank you for agreeing you are an idiot. Now we're getting somewhere. Until you deny saying it\\Idiot produced YET ONE faked quote... and became so proud of it.

    Fake? Even though I copied and pasted your words? You're crying "I never said it"? Again?

    Qtard: Thinking it could fool me?

    Fool you with your own words? Qtard trying to fool me, but it didn't work.

    Qtard: Sway me emotionally??? :-))))

    Hell no.

    Qtard: Yeah, you swayed me... by make me Laughing Out Loud.

    At your own stupidity?

    Qtard: Continue-continue, my little piggy. :-))))

    Self encouragement again.

    Qtard: And IT doing all of the time -- like when it declaring "dRump is guilty". Or that "Palestinians is innocent".\\I never said ALL Palestinians are innocent. But Qtard has said they're all accomplices. Even Palestinian babies were in on planning the attacks\\ Bull Shit.

    You said children are the responsibility of their parents. Thereby transferring (imagined) guilt onto their children. Babies even. Or are you going to say now "I never said it"?

    Qtard: And "I NEVER said". AGAIN!

    Yeah, you do keep saying that. In response to your own words -- cut and pasted.

    Qtard: And IT even ADMITTING it... though ONLY through own alter-ego "Qtard"... it throws all conflicting feeling/admission at.\\No. I have no alter ego called "Qtard". Qtard is YOUR nickname. When I reference "Qtard", I'm talking about YOU. I'm NOT talking about me\\Then why you when you... as you just said, talking about me -- describing YOUR OWN behavior?

    Didn't. Described YOUR behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Qtard: Well... ordinary thing for a religious bigots.\\Oh. Ok, you're acknowledging that YOU are Qtard. Finally.\\And how this idiotic "conclusion" relates to anything in that QUOTE given????

    Because you talked about religious bigots. And you are one.

    Qtard: Derpy the Idiot just SHOWED YET ONE time that it don't get it -- why QUOTES needed.

    To lie? Suggest "I never said it" unless you quote it. Then, if a quote is given, Qtard falsely claims it is "out of context" or "fake". Even when it's own words are cut and pasted. That's why you ask for quotes. Say they are "needed".

    Qtard: \\There are innocent Palestinians. That's a fact the religious bigot Qtard dislikes intensely.\\ **moronic laughter** Innocent? Like not engaged in sexual intercourse?

    No. In regards to what we were discussing. The Hamas terrorist attacks. Idiot forgot?

    Qtard: Well, naturally. If palestinians do not practice sex with children.

    Non sequitur from Qtard's dirty mind. Why are you thinking about having sex with children? You're a pedophile?

    Qtard: \\That all Palestinians are "accomplices"? Yeah. That's what the religious bigot Qtard thinks\\**moronic laughter**

    Confirmation laughing? Laughing means, "yeah, you got me"?

    Qtard: \\...And then falsely claiming that authorities always lie\\ **moronic laughter** Like in that "authorities always lie"\\ that is YOU OWN idea ... \\Not my idea. YOUR idea...\\ You are free to give QUOTE of MY words. Where'd *I* claime something like that YOUR moronic claim that -- "authorities always lie". But... you will find ... that that is ONLY YOUR WORDS. But... you will only habitually scream "I NEVER said it", yes, De-Ru-Pi?

    Of course I didn't say it. You said it. Not those EXACT words. But you did dismiss my quote of John Locke by calling it an appeal to authority. So now you admit Locke was right? I doubt it.

    Qtard: Your own and nobody else.\\Nope. That is your idea. Not just the idea of your alter ego, "De-Ru-Pi" either\\Then... pin me with QUOTE. That that was MY WORDS.

    When you said my quotes of John Locke are "an appeal to authority" and therefore not valid. Are you disagreeing with your own words now?

    Qtard: Or... you can work your butt out -- and try to find QUOTE of MY words confirming such egregious claim.\\The one where you dismiss John Locke's writings by calling my citing of him as an "appeal to authority"\\Yeah? So what? Locke's words -- it's NOT your words.

    wtf? I never said they were my words.

    Qtard: Or... In your feverish mind. Maybe you think (like some totally nutty religious bonkers) that when they repeating "Jesus's words"... that "Jesus itself talk with our mouth"????

    More babbling about Jesus? Those talks about Jesus are from YOUR feverish mind. Babbling about Jesus is YOUR behavior.

    Qtard: That'll be HILLARIOUS!!! **moronic laughter**

    It's pretty sad. For your loved ones -- if you have any. But that's looking doubtful. Given that (if you did and they cared about you) they should have looked into getting you help already. Due to the serious delusions you suffer from.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Qtard: Go! Said it! **moronic laughter** Oh, you didn't say it? And what? I "didn't say"?

    I didn't. You did.

    Qtard: Can you provide a QUOTE?

    Yes.

    Quote: Maybe you think (like some totally nutty religious bonkers) that when they repeating "Jesus's words"... that "Jesus itself talk with our mouth"????

    You just said it. Above. Those are your words, not my words.

    Qtard: \\No, not YOUR reality. Actual reality\\Yap. I GET IT. "Actual reality" of your feverish mind.

    No. Actual reality. The reality that exists in the minds of everyone who is not nuts (like you).

    Qtard: My outlook on Reality is much more clear then that "reality" produced by your feverish brain. Though... it still not complete. That's why I, as any other smart ace...

    :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Qtard: ...need to be sceptical... about everything.

    ...and wear a tinfoil hat. That will protect you from having "propaganda" beamed into your feverish mind!

    Qtard: But for dumb asses like you -- whatever your feverish mind proposes to you as "reality"... you gobbling it out as "Only True" reality. I get it. Really, I do.

    You don't get it. You CAN'T. Due to your insanity.

    Qtard: Because... there is numerous example AMONG Religious Bigots... like that acid-inspired idea about "World standing on Elephants...\\Qtard drops acid? Were you high on acid when you replied to my comment?\\Oh... so your alter-ego "Qtard" sitting on acid?

    wtf? How do you "sit" on acid? Gibberish. And I have no alter ego called "Qtard". YOU are Qtard. That is your nickname. Like you "nicknamed" Putin "Liliput". Or Les Carpenter "Lessy". Or is "Lessy" another of your many alter egos?

    ReplyDelete
  26. \\Qtard: That is THE SAME intimate feeling other religious bonkers declare when they say they "believe in Jesus". Or "belieng Muhamed... that there is Allah". Or whatever.

    \\No. Not at all.

    A-a-a-and???? That is so... because you believe it so? ;-P

    Well, that religious bigots do believe into incredible, counter-factual babbling too. ;-P

    Stark similarity. :-))))


    \\Religious faith-based belief isn't the same as evidence-based belief.

    Yap.

    The same as kneeling before cross is NOT THE SAME... religious bigots would scream... as kneeling in mosque. ;-P



    \\I have explained this many times.

    Naaah. YOU -- NOT.

    As I EXPLAINED it to... it.

    explain
    /ɪkˈspleɪn,ɛkˈspleɪn/
    verb
    make (an idea or situation) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts.


    But you NEVER was revealing ANY additional details about your stupid burps.

    NEITHER in "more details" and even LESS "revealing relevant facts". ;-P


    \\Qtard is obviously way too dumb to understand. Never will. Can't, due to a defective brain.

    Your alter-ego again. Yawn. ;-P



    \\Qtard: You DISAVOW that moronic claim?

    \\Impossible. I can't disavow a claim I never made about an "intimate feeling toward facts".

    You are wriggling.

    THE SAME as that Religious Bonkers... when they don't like to admit truth. ;-P

    That tells me that I came too DEMN close. :-))))))



    \\Qtard: Or... what is WAY more plausible. And IN ALL ACCORDANCE with given FACTS -- this "No" is just a NewSpeak "Yes".\\No.\\Thanky-thanky for providing YET ONE confirmation.

    \\Thanking yourself for your delusion that there was a "confirmation" from me? Well, I don't give a shit. My "no" still a "no" and NOT a NewSpeak "yes".

    That's perfectly what liar would say. ;-P



    \\Qtard: \\It wouldn't be absurd to NOT believe the sun rises in the morning? \\Of course it's absurd. BOTH WAYS. As believing -- it's our INNER feeling. It have NOTHING to do with FACTS. Because that feeling is IN YOUR DUMB HEAD... and Sun -- it's OVER THERE. They NOT SITUATED in one place EVEN.

    \\That's a feeling in your dumb head. That facts you don't like are "Demn propaganda".

    Talking with... itself? To whom of your alter-egos this was said?

    Acid-intaker? Or muslim kneeler? Maybe to the nutty? ;-P


    \\Qtard: \\Qtard is a PROVEN religious bigot. Qtard is PROUD of its religious bigotry toward Muslims.\\**moronic laughter** That's why I stirring you. To make fun from seeing such an idiotic retorts.

    \\You laugh at your idiotic retorts? OK. Me too. Sometimes. Mostly I just shake my head. Say to myself "I can't believe the level of stupidity being displayed by this moron".

    Again.

    To which of your alter-egos was this said?

    Acid-intaker? Or muslim kneeler? Maybe to the nutty? ;-P



    \\Qtard: WAT??? HOW??? Nobody knows. Even one idiot which spouted that non-sense.

    \\I dunno what you're even babbling about.

    Because you are brain-impared-idiot? Which loses memory damn too often -- forgetting OWN WORDS even though just said? And talks with own alter-egos?

    Well... VERY plausibly.

    I may even say -- is the fact about Derpy the Motonic Idiot...


    ReplyDelete

  27. \\Fake? Even though I copied and pasted your words? You're crying "I never said it"? Again?

    You SEPARATED that "True" from ALL other words. Though they are inseparable.

    And made that DELIBERATELY.

    To CHANGE the meaning of it.

    And you think that that is SO DEMN SAMRT, isn't it? You thought I WILL NOT see through such a miserly trick???? :-))))))

    What an I-D-I-O-T. You are. :-)))))

    PLUS.

    You YET ONE time tryed to use MY phrases against ME.

    While only PROVING with it -- that you are MISERLY IDOT -- that UNABLE to devise it's own. ;-P

    All in all... you was busted.

    But... you'd CONTINUE such silly tryes.

    And I... like it. Continue-continue, silly piglet. De-Ru-Pun.



    \\Qtard: Thinking it could fool me?

    \\Fool you with your own words? Qtard trying to fool me, but it didn't work.

    :-))))))))

    Yeah. Chopped into pieces and then collected in misleding way.

    Miserly Idiot Derpy thought it would work on me. :-))))))



    \\Qtard: Sway me emotionally??? :-))))

    \\Hell no.

    NewSpeak. ;-P

    Why you babbled that imbecilic non-sense then? To show itself being imbecile? What for? To "prove" that you MUCH SMARTER then me? :-)))))))))

    Go! Try! Devise some stooopidly pretentios make believe non-sense -- why you do that? ;-P

    But you CAN'T. Cause you are I-D-I-O-T. :-)))))) (ad infinitum)



    \\Qtard: Yeah, you swayed me... by make me Laughing Out Loud.

    \\At your own stupidity?

    :-)))))

    And HOW you could EXPLAIN -- while basing it on FACTS and LOGIC -- that that is MY stupidity I am laughing from????

    Naaah.

    That is Mission Impossible for such idiotic derp like you.

    Means -- your miserly tryes -- they are meaningless.

    And just confirming one thing -- again and again -- that your are miserably stupid jerk... that don't like to be called stupid, but it CAN'T... because IT IS.

    And that is the reason behind it all... :-)))))

    All of your behavior.

    And YOU WILL CONFIRM it. Here and now. With CONTINUING your silly struggles. Here. In this blog. With imecilic tryes to call MUCH SMARTER opponent "stupid"... without any intellectual proves behind it, just hot unwavering passion of an idiot.

    Like you do in this long screeds under this one...

    just a FACTLESS babbling to cover for some previously empty factless babbling.

    YAWN.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Qtard: The same as kneeling before cross is NOT THE SAME... religious bigots would scream... as kneeling in mosque.

    No, those are the same. Means Qtard does not understand the difference between religious faith-based belief and evidence-based belief. Never will. To dumb to get it.

    Qtard: \\I have explained this many times.\\Naaah. YOU -- NOT.

    Lie.

    Qtard: As I EXPLAINED it to... it.

    Idiot thinks posting the definition of "explain" is proof I didn't explain? Idiot thinks posting the definition of "explain" means it explained?

    Qtard: But you NEVER was revealing ANY additional details about your stupid burps.

    Gave ALL the necessary details.

    Qtard: \\Qtard is obviously way too dumb to understand. ... Your alter-ego again. Yawn.

    Your alter ego.

    Qtard: \\...I can't disavow a claim I never made about an "intimate feeling toward facts"\\You are wriggling.

    Only in your delusions.

    Qtard: THE SAME as that Religious Bonkers... when they don't like to admit truth.

    Qtard don't like to admit truth.

    Qtard: That tells me that I came too DEMN close.

    Qtard is telling me more about its delusions.

    Qtard: That's perfectly what liar would say.

    What someone refuting a liar would say.

    Qtard: Talking with... itself? To whom of your alter-egos this was said?

    Talking to you. You think you are my alter ego?

    Qtard: Acid-intaker? Or muslim kneeler? Maybe to the nutty?

    I don't know them. Never met them. Because they exist only in your delusions. They aren't real.

    Qtard: Again. To which of your alter-egos was this said?

    None.

    Qtard: \\I dunno what you're even babbling about.\\Because you are brain-impared-idiot? Which loses memory damn too often -- forgetting OWN WORDS even though just said? And talks with own alter-egos?

    No.

    Qtard: \\Hell no\\NewSpeak.

    No.

    Qtard: ...imecilic tryes to call MUCH SMARTER opponent "stupid"...

    :-))))))))))))))))))))

    Qtard: just a FACTLESS babbling to cover for some previously empty factless babbling.

    Qtard's factless babbling. Why I'm not responding most of the idiocy you wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  29. \\No, those are the same. Means Qtard does not understand the difference between religious faith-based belief and evidence-based belief. Never will. To dumb to get it.

    On your example? FOR SURE. ;-P



    \\Idiot thinks posting the definition of "explain" is proof I didn't explain? Idiot thinks posting the definition of "explain" means it explained?

    Yeah.

    In all accordance with definition -- *I* provided MORE details.

    And that is not just my words. But some veritable source.

    Source I have no influence or alegiance to.

    So, it make it -- objective source of truthful knowledge.

    Or... Derpy can point why it not.

    But... it will not, cause it can't. Because it was Pure Truth.

    So.

    It will try to bury it all under pile of verbal feces.

    Already trying. :-))))

    Same as all previous year. :-)))))



    \\Qtard: But you NEVER was revealing ANY additional details about your stupid burps.

    \\Gave ALL the necessary details.

    Admitting that you INCLINED to NOT explain your blurts DELIBERATELY? ;-P

    But... I ALREADY KNOW that much. :-))))

    Nothing new. :-)))))

    You think producing MOAR verbal shit... as "only necessary"... details.

    I already know that about you. ;-P



    \\Qtard: \\Qtard is obviously way too dumb to understand. ... Your alter-ego again. Yawn.

    \\Your alter ego.

    Now that confirms Derpy's wrongful usage of "you, your". ;-P

    And I will use that knowledge in further.



    \\Qtard: \\...I can't disavow a claim I never made about an "intimate feeling toward facts"\\You are wriggling.

    \\Only in your delusions.

    "Delusions" that confirmed with facts?

    Now it confirms wrongful usage of word "delusions" too. ;-P



    \\Talking to you. You think you are my alter ego?

    Aren't YOU think that way??? ;-P

    When you saying that (all that names) doing something that YOU -- one writing under nick Derpy, doing. :-))))))

    Something wrong with your head... it's apparent now.



    \\Qtard: Acid-intaker? Or muslim kneeler? Maybe to the nutty?

    \\I don't know them. Never met them. Because they exist only in your delusions. They aren't real.

    Well.

    Of course.

    If one have split personality disorder -- it cannot meet with other "selfs".

    Because they seems like sharing ONE body, and not present simultaneously.

    Hope this little nitpick from psichiatry would be helpful for Derpy to sort it out... that problems with its own brain working. ;-P



    \\Qtard: Again. To which of your alter-egos was this said?

    \\None.

    Oh... yet one alter-ego. ;-P



    \\Qtard: \\I dunno what you're even babbling about.\\Because you are brain-impared-idiot? Which loses memory damn too often -- forgetting OWN WORDS even though just said? And talks with own alter-egos?

    \\No.

    NewSpeak "Yes".

    Because of lots of evidances.

    That screams "I NEVER said it!"

    All that talks about "others" that told some shit under nick Derpy.



    \\Qtard: \\Hell no\\NewSpeak.

    \\No.

    NewSpeak "Yes".

    Yawn.



    \\Qtard: just a FACTLESS babbling to cover for some previously empty factless babbling.

    \\Qtard's factless babbling. Why I'm not responding most of the idiocy you wrote.

    Yap.

    You STOPPING responing... when you cannot come up with what to say to FACTS and TRUTH and FACTUAL LOGIC. ;-P

    I got it, I do. :-))))

    ReplyDelete
  30. Qtard: In all accordance with definition -- *I* provided MORE details. And that is not just my words. But some veritable source.

    SO WHAT????? You quoted a dictionary definition of "explain". This is somehow "proof" I didn't explain??? HOW???? When I DID explain.

    Qtard: Admitting that you INCLINED to NOT explain your blurts DELIBERATELY?

    Lie. Explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

    Qtard: Now that confirms Derpy's wrongful usage of "you, your".

    Lie.

    Qtard: And I will use that knowledge in further.

    Qtard will use that DELUSION in the future.

    Qtard: "Delusions" that confirmed with facts?

    QUOTE where I said I have an "intimate feeling about facts". There is no such quote. Except in your delusions.

    Qtard: Now it confirms wrongful usage of word "delusions" too.

    Qtard confirmed its wrongful usage of the word "delusions".

    Qtard: \\Talking to you. You think you are my alter ego?\\Aren't YOU think that way???

    FU*CK NO.

    Qtard: When you saying that (all that names) doing something that YOU -- one writing under nick Derpy, doing.

    Me not doing. Referring to what YOU are doing.

    Qtard: Something wrong with your head... it's apparent now.

    Something very wrong with your head. It's been apparent for a long time now.

    Qtard: Acid-intaker? Or muslim kneeler? Maybe to the nutty?\\I don't know them. Never met them. Because they exist only in your delusions. They aren't real\\Well. Of course. If one have split personality disorder -- it cannot meet with other "selfs".

    Qtard has split personality disorder? I can believe it.

    Qtard: Because they seems like sharing ONE body, and not present simultaneously. Hope this little nitpick from psichiatry would be helpful for Derpy to sort it out... that problems with its own brain working.

    Will NOT be helpful for your alter ego "Derpy". Because you keep trying to say I'm "Derpy". Even though YOUR behavior matches up with what you accuse "Derpy" of.

    Qtard: Again. To which of your alter-egos was this said?\\None\\Oh... yet one alter-ego.

    Gibberish.

    Qtard: \\I dunno what you're even babbling about.\\Because you are brain-impared-idiot? Which loses memory damn too often -- forgetting OWN WORDS even though just said? And talks with own alter-egos?\\No.\\NewSpeak "Yes".\\Because of lots of evidances. That screams "I NEVER said it!". All that talks about "others" that told some shit under nick Derpy.

    No. Nobody posts as "Derpy" on this blog. I only see YOU babbling about a "Derpy". Your alter ego.

    Qtard: \\Hell no\\NewSpeak.\\No.\\NewSpeak "Yes".

    No.

    Qtard: just a FACTLESS babbling to cover for some previously empty factless babbling.\\Qtard's factless babbling. Why I'm not responding most of the idiocy you wrote. Yap. You STOPPING responing... when you cannot come up with what to say to FACTS and TRUTH and FACTUAL LOGIC.

    Babbling isn't logic.

    Qtard: I got it, I do.

    You don't.

    ReplyDelete
  31. \\SO WHAT????? You quoted a dictionary definition of "explain". This is somehow "proof" I didn't explain??? HOW???? When I DID explain.

    Yeah??

    You provided MORE details?

    Naaah.

    Means your claim that you "DID explain"... it's a lie. Obviously moronic lie. Counter-factual.



    \\Qtard: Admitting that you INCLINED to NOT explain your blurts DELIBERATELY?

    \\Lie. Explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

    Without details, without details and without details. AGAIN and AGAIN.

    Only with some lame baseless bullshit babbling.

    Which is non-explanation. ;-P

    Which confirms that you are moronic liar. EVER TIME.

    So, continue-continue.

    Confirming that. ;-P


    \\Qtard: "Delusions" that confirmed with facts?

    \\QUOTE where I said I have an "intimate feeling about facts". There is no such quote. Except in your delusions.

    You said "I believe in facts".

    Believing -- thjat is very intimate feeling.

    Because, it's nearly impossible to percieve from outside.

    In contrary to other emotions. Like laughing. Or rage.

    It will be written on ones face.

    But. Not believing, no.

    There is NO WAY to CONFIRM is someone believe something or not.

    Are my explanation detailed enough? ;-P


    \\Qtard: \\Talking to you. You think you are my alter ego?\\Aren't YOU think that way???

    \\FU*CK NO.

    And which of you alter-ego said that?

    Yawn.

    Heinous liar? ;-P



    \\Me not doing. Referring to what YOU are doing.

    Referring? How?

    With QUOTES? No.

    Then with mere babbling? Buyt your mere babbling of a liar cannot be seen as "referring". ;-P


    \\Qtard: Something wrong with your head... it's apparent now.

    \\Something very wrong with your head. It's been apparent for a long time now.

    And you can EXPLAIN in details, and with basing it on FACTS???

    What and how?

    Naaah.



    \\Qtard has split personality disorder? I can believe it.

    Yap. Because you are delitious idiot. Which can believe in any absurd. ;-P

    And very proud of it. :-)))))


    \\Will NOT be helpful for your alter ego "Derpy". Because you keep trying to say I'm "Derpy". Even though YOUR behavior matches up with what you accuse "Derpy" of.

    Aha... that must be ME who are using Dervish Sanders nick here. :-)))))

    What a delusional idiot. You are. :-))))



    \\No. Nobody posts as "Derpy" on this blog. I only see YOU babbling about a "Derpy". Your alter ego.

    Derping Derpy saying that it's not derp? ;-P

    Or yeah, we can believe to the babbling of that delirious idiot Derpy. :-)))))

    Naaaah.



    \\Qtard: \\Hell no\\NewSpeak.\\No.\\NewSpeak "Yes".

    \\No.

    YET ONE NewSpeak "Yes". ;-))))



    \\Babbling isn't logic.

    This time some wise Derpy's alter-ego answered -- admitted that Derpy's babbling it isn't logic.

    I would like to talk with this alter-ego more. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  32. Qtard's babbling isn't logic. There is no babbling from me.

    Like the babbling above about how it (didn't) explain. Said it did so with "details" that was just it babbling nonsense about believing being "intimate".

    ReplyDelete
  33. :-)))))

    I like you cringing.

    Do cringe more. :-))))

    ReplyDelete
  34. Impossible. I can't do something "more" when I have not done it all all.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yep.

    Like that.

    Please, do it MOAR!

    ReplyDelete
  36. I won't. But your delusions will tell you I have.

    ReplyDelete