Clearly a paid troll of some sort. No one posts the same comment that much unless they are being paid by the comment. More importantly, have people not figured out that Trump argued to remove the mrna vaccines from the market? The vaccines were only allowed to be on the market due to emergency use authorization, which meant no other effe…
Clearly a paid troll of some sort. No one posts the same comment that much unless they are being paid by the comment. More importantly, have people not figured out that Trump argued to remove the mrna vaccines from the market? The vaccines were only allowed to be on the market due to emergency use authorization, which meant no other effective pre-existing treatments could exist. So, when Trump argued for alternative, existing therapies (like hydroxychloroquine and others) he was, in effect, arguing to pull the vaccines.
No, just normal chess. Pretty typical approach in corporate America, where you can't directly make many claims w/o setting off fire alarms with the various gov't agents (aka HR) and whiny always "offended" crowd. So, you have to make your case in a more circuitous way. Leaders in large corporations do this all the time.
Either way, he made arguments for other existing treatments, which has the same effect as arguing to remove the vaccines. He also paid a heavy price for it, many times over.
LOL. Way to take my words out of context and quote only the part you wanted. As I said, when he argued for alternative therapies - which he did, repeatedly - it was in effect an argument to take the vaccines off the market. If there were any other existing effective drugs, the mrna shots could legally not be on the market. Simply the facts. Move along.
Clearly a paid troll of some sort. No one posts the same comment that much unless they are being paid by the comment. More importantly, have people not figured out that Trump argued to remove the mrna vaccines from the market? The vaccines were only allowed to be on the market due to emergency use authorization, which meant no other effective pre-existing treatments could exist. So, when Trump argued for alternative, existing therapies (like hydroxychloroquine and others) he was, in effect, arguing to pull the vaccines.
More 57-D chess, right?
No, just normal chess. Pretty typical approach in corporate America, where you can't directly make many claims w/o setting off fire alarms with the various gov't agents (aka HR) and whiny always "offended" crowd. So, you have to make your case in a more circuitous way. Leaders in large corporations do this all the time.
Either way, he made arguments for other existing treatments, which has the same effect as arguing to remove the vaccines. He also paid a heavy price for it, many times over.
"Trump argued to remove the mrna vaccines from the market"
WOW are you delusional. This is Trump just four days ago:
"During the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked on the front lines in New York City
treating thousands of Americans and helped patients in the aftermath of President
Donald Trump's Historic Operation Warp Speed that saved hundreds of millions
of lives."
Does that sounds like he's about to remove them from the market?
LOL. Way to take my words out of context and quote only the part you wanted. As I said, when he argued for alternative therapies - which he did, repeatedly - it was in effect an argument to take the vaccines off the market. If there were any other existing effective drugs, the mrna shots could legally not be on the market. Simply the facts. Move along.