dinsdale

I didn't think you'd be man enough to apologise. All you have are childish ad hominem attacks. In future please DO NOT misrepresent my posts.

No that is definitely not what I posted so please do not misrepresent my posts. My posts were: "I find it astounding that someone can still use MSNBC as a source and try and seem credible." "BTW nobody takes MSNBC seriously except for sheeple." "I'm sure the loyal sheeple are still watching but as the saying goes you can't cure stupid." A true and honest person would apologize for such a misrepresentation of a person's post.

It seems your brain power has plateaued for the day. The FACT is MSNBC viewership has plummeted. I gave only 7 citations for this but there's a lot more than that all saying the same thing. I'm sure the loyal sheeple are still watching but as the saying goes you can't cure stupid.

The DEFUSE proposal includes discussion about the planned introduction of human-specific cleavage sites into bat coronaviruses. Do you understand this? https://changingtimes.media/2024/01/19/scientists-say-ecohealth-alliances-defuse-proposal-was-a-blueprint-for-sars-cov-2/

Folk are watching MSNBC is correct. It's just a whole lot less than before. Seems somewhere around the 50% less mark.

Show anywhere that I'm an anti-vaxxer. You simply sprout the demonizing rubbish pushed by Fauci and the legacy media. Don't want to take an experimental gene therapy jab you must be an anti-vaxxer. Complete and utter BS. I have also previously provided a YT video of RFK Jnr. saying he is not an anti-vaxxer.

MSNBC primetime viewership plunged 54% in the days after Donald Trump won the White House as the network’s audience tuned away from its left-leaning coverage, according to a report. https://www.yahoo.com/news/msnbc-ratings-plunge-trump-election-213433466.html News ratings down after election, MSNBC sees 54% fall, CNN down 36% https://san.com/cc/news-ratings-down-after-election-msnbc-sees-54-fall-cnn-down-36/ MSNBC Viewership Drops by Half in Days After Trump Victory https://www.thewrap.com/msnbc-cnn-fox-news-ratings-after-trump-election/ MSNBC ratings plunge after Trump election victory — as more than half of primetime audience flees https://nypost.com/2024/11/12/media/msnbc-ratings-plunge-after-trump-election-victory/ Viewers Flee MSNBC, and Flock to Fox News, in Wake of Election https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/business/media/msnbc-fox-news-ratings-election.html MSNBC ratings tank again after election spike as viewers tire of anti-Trump rants https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14072525/MSNBC-ratings-drop-Trump-election.html MSNBC Ratings Plummet as Democrats Grow Weary https://www.thedailybeast.com/msnbc-ratings-plummet-as-democrats-grow-weary/

Silly comment. Lying fruitcake is your opinion. The majority of Americans voted for him. The majority didn't vote for the progressive left. These are facts something your puerile posts definitely lack. BTW nobody takes MSNBC seriously except for sheeple.

Not my leader mate. He's the leader of the USA. Maybe you can provide an MSNBC video that says he isn't.

I would say it's got nothing to do with him taking if indeed that was the case. Fair chance, IMHO, it's ya-ba .

I find it astounding that someone can still use MSNBC as a source and try and seem credible.

Trump speak. Reality is on the ground Russia is making more and more ground in a protracted, attritional war where massive numbers are dying. Ukraine will eventually run out of fighting age males to have an effective fighting force. What will happen? Crimea is gone and Putin will maintain the ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine which have been taken. Ukraine has zero chance of pushing them back to the pre-war border. It's obviously very complex and anyone who took Trump literally IMHO ain't too bright. What people got was Trump basically saying is he'll move to end it. The Dems would have continued on the same path.

I'm not talking about rabies or Ebola. I'm saying that there is zero evidence for a zoonotic transfer of a bat coronavirus, a virus that was already adapted to be highly infectious to humans, came from the wet market in Wuhan. I still don't understand why the CCP would destroy evidence in the Wuhan Institute and yet be unable to provide any evidence of it originating from zoonosis in only one particular place, that place being a Wuhan wet market. An interesting document from EcoHealth gained under FOI seeking funding for what is obviously gain of function research. "According to leaked documents made public by the investigative group DRASTIC in September 2021, the EHA requested in its proposal a total $14,209,245 over 3.5 years ($8,411,546 for phase 1 and $5,797,699 for phase 2). The EHA proposed injecting chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) into “batified” mice and humanised mice genetically altered to express the human ACE-2 receptor." "Recombinant viruses will be recovered in Vero cls, or in mouse cells over-expressing. human, bat or civet ACE2 receptors to support cultivation of viruses with a weaker RBD-human ACE2 interface." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal https://changingtimes.media/2024/01/19/scientists-say-ecohealth-alliances-defuse-proposal-was-a-blueprint-for-sars-cov-2/

Not sure what a prole is but it seems you're calling all those that shifted across to Trump are "dumb". Here lies the problem. It was language like this that helped them make up their minds to move to Trump. Of course this wasn't a shift to the right. The right shifted to them. The radical progressive woke left moved away from them.

Did I say PA was solid blue? No I did not so please DO NOT misrepresent what I posted. I asked for what blue states flipped red. Hint: Every swing state that was blue in 2020 bar none.

I agree and have said this previous. Give him a free hand. He'll get a slap in 2 years if people don't like the way things are going.

No one said that solid blue states will flip. Now you can tell us what blue states did flip. Here's a start and this was a big one. PA.

New York 2020 New York 2024 I did say previous to the election NY would see a swing to Trump. Trump made a 5 percent gain in Manhattan, 6 percent in Brooklyn, 11 percent in both the Bronx and Queens, and 8 percent on already Republican-leaning Staten Island. https://www.newsweek.com/news-york-city-map-results-swing-republican-1982887

You always conflate these two issues. Gain of function research on bat coronaviruses and deliberate release are obviously not mutually inclusive. I also doubt it was intentional release but I am in no doubt it's not zoonotic. There is ZERO evidence for zoonotic transfer.

Trump won because the middle class, black Americans, Latinos, Asians, women, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, white America. the working class etc. voted for him more than Harris.

Well you hang on to this. It's all you've got. Reality is Trump won everything. Whitehouse/Electoral College/the House/the Senate/the Popular Vote/All 7 swing states. Semantics aside this can sure be seen as a landslide. It's a democratic election. To win you need more votes than your opposition. To win everything (barring the deep blue states) means you won and won big.

Did they design it for the last one?

Here's an excellent example.

This is industry funding for countries health regulators. Light says the problem with drug regulators is widespread. Even the FDA—the most well funded regulator—reports 65% of its funding for the evaluation of drugs comes from industry user fees (table 1),9 and over the years user fees have expanded to generic drugs, biosimilars, and medical devices. “It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organisation independently and rigorously assessing medicines. They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data. Doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding.” https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538 Sponsorship bias in clinical research Abstract Background: Pharmaceutical companies fund the vast majority of the clinical research that is undertaken on medications but face a conflict of interest between producing good science and results that will enhance the sales of their products. Objectives: To document concrete examples of bias in clinical research induced by pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. Methods: This paper uses a thematic approach to documenting the extent of these biases in the following areas: research question/topic, choice of doses and comparator agents, control over trial design and changes in protocols, early termination of clinical trials, reporting to regulatory authorities, reinterpretation of data, restrictions on publication rights, use of fake journals, journal supplements and symposia, ghostwriting, publication and reporting of results and outcomes. Results: Bias in favour of industry is apparent in every one of the themes examined with the result that research funded by industry undermines confidence in medical knowledge. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23135338/

If those insane women on the View say it's true the sheeple will believe them. How truly sad it is that there are actually people so stupid on the face of this earth. Of course the education systems or lack thereof are producing the sheeple to believe any narrative pushed by the legacy media.