all credible sources say 'plandemic' is bunk.
i'm guessing there will be support from the trumpians here. anyone stupid enough to support trump is also stupid enough to buy into junk conspiracy theories.
so what idiots here think this was a planned pandemic, or support 'plandemic' the documentary?
Posts
Total:
35
Trump planned it as part of his ongoing effort to destroy the democratically elected media and destroy the country.
harvard journal article states that trump supporters are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories regarding virus
-->
@Greyparrot
i'm pretty sure you're jokin, but ya never know these days
-->
@n8nrgmi
take back our country. CNN 2020. Make TVMedia Great Again.
Harvard journal article states that MSM supporters are more likely to stay classically conditioned once trained.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Not a Trumpian, but yes I do suspect that the Corona virus was "planned," much like ZIKA, EBOLA, SARS, and the like. And no, it's no "conspiracy theory." The aforementioned viruses have patent numbers (what material other than an "invention" or "creation" requires a patent?) Governments have used biological weapons against the populace it presumes to govern for centuries. Rather than presume "idiocy" in some contrarian fervor, do your research. Perhaps you can start with MK Project NAOMI, an initiative by the U.S. started in the late 19th century for population control.
-->
@Athias
do you have any credible sources that back up your views that this was a planned pandemic, or are they just random videos and websites that you have for support?
Planning the pandemic in advance would indicate a superlative ability to innovate, but, the facts are, no other country, per capita, has as many awarded patents, the scale of innovation, after all, as the United States. In fact, all other countries, combined, do not have the number of patents awarded to the United States. This was an idea conceived only after the crisis happened, much like Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a crisis go to waste."
-->
@n8nrgmi
do you have any credible sources that back up your views that this was a planned pandemic
What source do you require?
are they just random videos and websites that you have for support?
What is "random"? I have no videos to provide, only information.
-->
@fauxlaw
Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Hillary Clinton actually had the balls recently to repeat the phrase for her trained seals.
-->
@fauxlaw
Planning the pandemic in advance would indicate a superlative ability to innovate, but, the facts are, no other country, per capita, has as many awarded patents, the scale of innovation, after all, as the United States. In fact, all other countries, combined, do not have the number of patents awarded to the United States. This was an idea conceived only after the crisis happened, much like Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a crisis go to waste."
So is it then your contention that these viruses may have been patented post facto in order to reap the benefits of commercializing their treatments? My point doesn't necessarily contradict this unless we impose time constraints and/or exclude their being man-made.
-->
@Greyparrot
Hillary Clinton actually had the balls recently to repeat the phrase for her trained seals.
Hilary's esteem among those seals is as substantial as her family's criminal conduct. It wouldn't be surprising if she knows more than she's letting on.
-->
@Athias
From a bit of cursory research on viruses and lab-created viruses, the consensus seems to be the genetic markers of Covid19 seem to line up with natural viral instances and do not show the DNA markers of a lab-created virus. That's not to say a natural virus couldn't be released from a lab where it was being studied.
-->
@Athias
forbes says the plandemic videos are bunk. forbes is a credible source, not just random internet riff raff. do you have any sources like forbes? you be the judge of whether its credible, and we all can review your decision.
-->
@Greyparrot
From a bit of cursory research on viruses and lab-created viruses, the consensus seems to be the genetic markers of Covid19 seem to line up with natural viral instances and do not show the DNA markers of a lab-created virus. That's not to say a natural virus couldn't be released from a lab where it was being studied.
The same can be said of SARS, of which COVID-19 is one form. And while the DNA may have not demonstrated markers of laboratory synthesis, natural viruses "under study"--quotation marks denoting spurious intentions--can still be manipulated and weaponized. For now however, since I am not availed to all the facts, I can only express suspicion.
-->
@Athias
The motive is certainly there for China to destabilize the US economy considering the policy changes over the last 3 years. However, the accounts from the now missing and presumed dead Chinese scientists say they were aware of the virus long before January.
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's make Opera our President and Anderson Cooper the VP
Let's also then make David Muir in charge of the propoganda
-->
@n8nrgmi
forbes says the plandemic videos are bunk.
I have no videos to provide you, so this isn't relevant.
Forbes is a credible source, not just random internet riff raff
What makes Forbes different from random internet riff raff?
you be the judge of whether its credible, and we all can review your decision.
Here are 19 corona virus patents that go as far back as the late 80's:
CORONAVIRUS PROTEINS AND ANTIGENS Publication number: 20160339097 (November 24, 2016)
CORONAVIRUS PROTEINS AND ANTIGENS Publication number: 20190202868 (March 15, 2019)
Coronavirus proteins and antigens Patent number: 10280199 (Filed: August 4, 2016 Date of Patent: May 7, 2019)
Vaccine compositions and methods of treating coronavirus infection Publication number: 20060286124 (December 21, 2006)
Uncharacterized ORF3 in SARS-coronavirus is a cyclic-AMP-dependent kinase and a target for SARS therapy Publication number: 20050276818 (December 15, 2005)
Uncharacterized ORF3 in SARS-coronavirus is a cyclic-AMP-dependent kinase and a target for SARS therapy Patent number: 7504205 (Filed: May 17, 2005 Date of Patent: March 17, 2009)
CANINE RESPIRATORY CORONAVIRUS (CRCV) SPIKE PROTEIN, POLYMERASE AND HEMAGGLUTININ/ESTERASE Publication number: 20090081780 (September 26, 2008)
CANINE RESPIRATORY CORONAVIRUS (CRCV) SPIKE PROTEIN, POLYMERASE AND HEMAGGLUTININ/ESTERASE Publication number: 20090081780 (Publication date: March 26, 2009)
PEPTIDE COMPOUNDS FOR DETECTING OR INHIBITING SARS CORONAVIRUS AND APPLICATION THEREOF Publication number: 2010030436 (December 2, 2010)
Canine Respiratory Coronavirus (Crcv) Spike Protein, Polymerase and Hemagglutinin/Esterase Publication number: 20070248616 (October 25, 2007)
Canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCV) spike protein Patent number: 7981427 (Filed: September 26, 2008 Date of Patent: July 19, 2011)
Methods and compositions for infectious cDNA of SARS coronavirus Publication number: 20060240530 (October 26, 2006)
Compositions and methods for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus Publication number: 20050095582 (March 27, 2008)
Compositions And Methods For Detecting Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Publication number: 20110223659 (September 15, 2011)
Ribozyme to cleave coronavirus gene Publication number: 20100273997 (October 28, 2010)
Compositions and methods for treating coronavirus infection and SARS Publication number: 20050002901 (January 6, 2005.)
FUSION PROTEINS OF RECOMBINANT SARS CORONAVIRUS STRUCTURAL PROTEINS, THEIR PRODUCTION AND USES Publication number: 20100150923 (June 17, 2010)
Civet animal model system for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus infection and uses thereof Publication number: 20060123499 (June 8, 2006)
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR CORONAVIRUS DIAGNOSTICS AND THERAPEUTICS Publication number: 20160238601 (August 18, 2016)
And the earliest patent I can find:
Inactivated canine coronavirus vaccine Patent number: 4567042 (Filed: June 7, 1984 Date of Patent: January 28, 1986 )
Answer me this: why were there patents filed for this virus (or its treatment) 25 years before its global "outbreak?"
-->
@Greyparrot
The motive is certainly there for China to destabilize the US economy considering the policy changes over the last 3 years. However, the accounts from the now missing and presumed dead Chinese scientists say they were aware of the virus long before January.
I would assume so since there were Chinese applicants to patent the virus as far back as 2004. But the earliest patent went to a U.S. company.
-->
@n8nrgmi
harvard journal article states that trump supporters are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories regarding virus
Probably because we rightfully don't trust the corrupt mass media's narrative. Luckily faith in these institutions is dropping among people of all political persuasions.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Also, China donated hundreds of millions to Harvard's endowment fund, which is around 41 billion dollars.
Why the fuck would anyone trust Harvard? They are the epitome of elites who have 41 billion reasons not to care about America.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you remember this story about a Harvard Professor working for the Chinese government?
-->
@Greyparrot
Hillaryous Balloon Girl literally and figuratively has no balls
-->
@Athias
The details of China's patent policy is not necessarily evidence of good design, relative to American patents, but China does have a patent policy, ands functioning system, along with their skillful assailment of IP.
so half the country is stupid cause they voted for trump...
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And Harvard cares about America while accepting hundreds of millions in Chinese direct cash payments. At least what we know about. Those highly educated people probably have billions more in Chinese money offshore we haven't yet caught them with.
-->
@Greyparrot
no you arent special with a college degree
-->
@n8nrgmi
If you could define exactly what you mean by ‘a conspiracy theory’, or ‘conspiracy thinking’ it would be extremely helpful.
-->
@Marko
If you could define exactly what you mean by ‘a conspiracy theory’, or ‘conspiracy thinking’ it would be extremely helpful.
I'll take a stab in the dark and state that he meant--based on the context in which he uses the term--an insufficient and often biased explanation or ascription of "conspiracy" to an easily explainable circumstance or event. It's clear that n8nrgmi exhibited no intention of treating this topic seriously as evidenced by the thread's title. Not to mention, early on he attempted to attach the stigma of "conspiracy theorists" to Trump supporters using appeals to authority. Rather than scrutinize the findings himself, he relied on the reputation of the alleged finder (i.e. Harvard Journal, Forbes Magazine, etc.) Furthermore, it's also clear that he was contradicting these "conspiracy theories" with nothing more than strawmans and ad hominems, presuming idiocy and internet "riff raff" as well as random youtube videos as the sole source of information which informs "plandemic."