Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.2K

My intention is not to troll at work, and I will probably only get to ask one or maybe two questions before I get muted on the telecon, so I ask you magnificent retards; what would be the most intelligent questions to ask, that will seem innocuous but switch people on to the fact that this is unadulterated fucking bullshit.

My intention is not to troll at work, and I will probably only get to ask one or maybe two questions before I get muted on the telecon, so I ask you magnificent retards; what would be the most intelligent questions to ask, that will seem innocuous but switch people on to the fact that this is unadulterated fucking bullshit.

(post is archived)

[–] • 89 pts

Can I hold the drug company liable for any damages their product causes me? Why not?

Has there ever been a vaccine using this technology on people before? Why didn't the previous attempts exit animal trials?

Is it true the only way for the vaccine to be approved by the FDA without trials was if there was no treatment deemed effective for covid? Is this why ivermectin and hydrochloroquin treatments were supposed even after showing promising results in human testing?

Is this a leaky vaccine?

Why should young healthy people submit their bodies to experimental drug trials for a disease with a 0.01% mortality rate?

Is it true that VAERS only receive a fraction of the total vaccine injuries? Why?

How many vaccine injuries have there been to date with this vaccine?

[–] • 21 pts

Lol stop beating him he’s already dead!

Good list. Saved.

[–] [deleted] • 13 pts

A lot of these points are technical and the person answering can spin them easily. I'd do something simple:

"I've heard that kids and pregnant women shouldn't get the vaccine. Are there medical conditions that could preclude me from getting the vaccine?"

Basically get them to admit that the vaccine isn't quite as safe as we've been led to believe.

[–] • 11 pts

The Swine Flu vaccine in the 60s was shut down after 25 deaths yet this jab has caused 6 thousand deaths and countless serious injuries yet the FDA hasn't taken it off the market. He can ask why that is the case.

[–] • 8 pts (edited )

Does he have any paperwork that will set your mind at ease about the rumors that insurance companies don't cover damages from a shot that is classified as "experimental" by the FDA?

...i looked around a bit online before i posed this question and its 50/50 on whether they will or not.....I'm not counting all the crap posts online that a REEEEing about it. Just things i read from what are considered "good sources" (i use that term loosely).

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

Can I add:

  • Given for people below the age of 40, how many adverse effects have arisen from this jab vs the long term adverse effects virus?
  • Is the covid jab actually a vaccine or should it be better classed as a nano-medical device? (Where a vaccine is termed as a deactivated virus.)
  • Is it still possible to catch Covid after getting jabbed?
  • How do the deaths per annum in 2020 to covid compare with the deaths due to influenza and pneumonia for previous years? How do they break down by age?
[–] • 3 pts

“Doctor, since long-term studies of a drug are usually the number one factor in determining if a doctor is going to prescribe it to their patients, how do you justify prescribing an experimental treatment that has: zero long term studies, a growing list of deaths, side-effects and adverse events, and the fact that it isn’t even a vaccine, but rather a gene therapy, for something that has a 99% survival rate if contracted?”

[–] • 0 pt

GREAT question here.

[–] • 2 pts

A retired physician friend of mine asked me yesterday if I had taken the vaxx(s) after he said he’s taken both.

As this friend is very outspoken, I thought it was going to be the last convo we were going to have/I anticipated a fight.

I (gently) replied with just the first part, “Aren’t long term studies supposed to be the number one criteria for determining if you’re going to write a drug?”

He seemed a little surprised at the question and (to his credit) sheepishly said yes.

For me it just proves that if you don’t actively follow your head, your emotions can destroy you.

[–] • 41 pts

Since these are not legally vaccines, and some half a million are injured, and the vaccine injury fund won't cover them, is my company liable? Who pays for my disability?

[–] • 11 pts

This is the one that will get the most attention Puts personal safety, money, and your company at risk. People will think hard

[–] • 1 pt

'not legally vaccines' will immediately just cause normies to scoff

[–] • 7 pts

This is the winner. Pick this one, OP.

[–] • 3 pts

We could have a winner here. People think with their hip pockets... especially where I am. @NoisySilence

[–] • 5 pts

OSHA said the company will be liable.

[–] • 5 pts

That's the winner in this thread.

[–] • 2 pts

My disability, death, or dismemberment.

[–] • 17 pts

Why is the insert left blank in the product info for the vaxx?

[–] • 3 pts

I think this is an easy one. No trials means no insert information because what data do they have in side effects etc.

[–] • 1 pt

I could be wrong, but I thought I saw a QR code and that was basically it. So it is something you would have to scan. But, it is the only vaccine insert I have seen like that , personally.

[–] • 12 pts

who are the heads of all these companies? what does the "early life" section read like?

[–] • 10 pts

If it does not stop contacting nor transmission of Covid, why is any additional risk no matter how small sensible?

[–] • 9 pts (edited )

What is SM-102 and why is it in the "vaccine?" Print out the MSDS on it in mass quantity. Source: https://archive.md/GVnZq

[–] • 3 pts

Sm-102 is 80% chloroform

[–] • 3 pts

Doesn’t matter to normies. They look at it like table salt, 50% sodium and 50% chlorine. Both are fatal to ingest. Combine them and you get salt.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

That was the actual argument I got into with a coworker. He googles everything and I tried to explain how Google is wiping everything I had referenced even from a couple days ago. So "fact checkers" , will only read Googles "ministry of truth" websites.

He basically said it's safe and there is no chloroform in it as it's removed before the SM-102 is put in the shot, per his "friend" who works at Pfizer..

[–] • 1 pt

salt is sodium chloride, the 'ide' is the giveaway. 'ides' as in 'oxide', meaning there was an oxygen reaction needed to get to that part. Meaning heat. You put sodium and chlorine and mix oxygen, then ignite that oxygen, then, and only then do you get the oxide salt.

[–] • 0 pt

According to the SDS it's a 90% mixture in solution faggot. Fairly confident we have no idea if this is the actual mixture being used in production by moderna. Big news if true but likely not.

[–] • 0 pt

That makes it 10% worse you dialated hole.

[–] • 0 pt

Easily answered to the satisfaction of even a suspicious normie.

[–] • 8 pts

How come vaccine compnies are immune from lawsuits regarding the vaccine ?

[–] • 2 pts
[–] • 3 pts

Good luck getting a doctor to even recognize a vaccine injury. So many parents I know have had this argument with their children's doctors and they will make some excuse.

[–] • 1 pt

Meaning ?

Also, is the above superseeded by a later law or regulation or whtever that says that "yes, but now is different" ?

[–] [deleted] • 6 pts

why does moderna vaccine contain sm-102 a banned substance that is known to cause death by skin touch alone.

[–] • 5 pts (edited )

Don't stick your neck out.

Edit:

...but just for fun.

I'd ask what kind of testing has been done on the long term side effects.

It's simple but it forces the vaccine weasel to give an answer he doesn't want to give ("none"). If you ask what the effects are on reproductive health or something like that he could weasel out with "there's nothing to show it causes any harm".

[–] • 1 pt

I like this one too, appreciate your input you magnificent retard.

[–] • 1 pt

It's good to be recognized by my proper title, thanks.

[–] [deleted] • 5 pts

Really only one question needs to be asked - at what date will the manufacturers complete their safety trials? Since the date is in the future, the rational response is to wait until that date.

[–] • 0 pt

Exactly. Then he has to explain why you should take the risk now rather than simply wait. He has to compare risks of the vaccine to risks of COVID, and get into all that. It's like someone suing you frivolously then you getting to do discovery on them.

[–] • 4 pts

I heard a bunch of baseball players tested positive even though they were vaccinated, I thought the vaccine was 95% effective?

[–] • 9 pts (edited )

If the human immune system is 99.94% effective, why would anyone submit to a medical experiment which claims 95% efficacy? Especially when three effective treatments are available.

[–] • 0 pt

If you're vaccinated against a disease you're supposed to test positive for antibodies.

[–] • 2 pts

The PCR test doesn't test for antibodies. It tests for all CV strains along a certain spectrum.

[–] • 1 pt

Antibodies are largely irrelevant for viruses.

[–] • 3 pts

Which is why a vaccine is bunk.

[–] • 1 pt

Do you have a source? I didn't know this. I'd like to know more. All the media and talking heads keep talking about a robust response and building antibodies.

Load more (54 replies)