1000's Have Developed Tinnitus Who Took Covid Shots

Somewhat off-topic for this thread but I just read that anyway (first time I'd even heard of it as it happens).

Taken literally it would be extremely broad, covering a vast range of proscribed medicines, legal and illegal drugs and household cleaning and pest control products. It could also be read to criminalise simply contracting any serious infectious disease, especially if it was due to negligence or even intentional (e.g. pox parties).

It obviously isn't intended to be taken so literally and apparently nor is it (or they'd be an "Escape From New York" remake in Florida ). Significantly, it also makes a clear distinction for those with lawful authority to handle such materials which, like it or not, would cover any vaccine production and delivery.

I'm also unclear why a legal definition from a single US state is all that significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

No one got tinnitus from the vaccine.

Some people are pathetic.

 

Did you read the US statute? 18USC175?

Keep your day job Joe. Interpreting statutes is not your strong point. I suspect that you choose to misinterpret these statutes because you don't want to believe the brutal truth, that your own government has poisoned you by design. As J. Edgar Hoover noted in the last century, "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

State laws are significant because, among other things, the states created the federal government back in 1787. Did you know that?

 

I didn't initially because I missed that you were referring to two separate things (If you really wanted people to read them, links might have been clearer). I have now, and the US statue seems simpler than the Florida one, making a clear distinction of "for use as a weapon", specifically excluding legitimate medical and research purposes.

What makes you assume my interpretation is wrong? You've not even tried to counter my explanations for my interpretation or offered any kind of alternative.

Anyway, I don't see how our lay interpretations of particular legislation has anything to do with the truth of the various COVID vaccination programs. If governments (or anyone else) intentionally delivered poisoned medicines to the public, that would obviously be wrong (and criminal) regardless of whether it technically fell under the definition of any biological weapon statutes or not. Feel free to actually explain the connection there.

Of course, your initial assertion was only that people who disagree with you refuse to read those statutes, which I've just proven wrong. Regardless of whether you are willing to accept my interpretations, I have indeed read them.

 

https://www.mercola.com/

More fake news.

 

Did you notice in the Florida statute that it is found in Title XLVI which is entitled 'Crimes', Chapter 790 entitled 'Weapons and Firearms', Section 166 entitled 'Manufacture, possession, sale, delivery, display, use or attempted or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction or hoax weapon of mass destruction prohibited; definitions; penalties' ?

Those points explain why your previous points in your post #51.

Yesterday working in the yard I was thinking about your post #51, and realized you have a point. Could all the junk food, GMO food and such be considered a bioweapon? I don't know, but such an interpretation might be considered, given the rampant obesity in our culture.

 

No, that would be ridiculous and counter productive. If it is decided a behaviour should be legally prohibited and it doesn't clearly fit within the scope of any existing legislation, we would define new or updated laws to cover the specific behaviour we wish to prohibit. We don't scour the statutes for any existing laws we could twist and bend to fit that behaviour.

As I've already said though, if anything like the conspiracies involving COVID or the vaccines actually happened, they would likely fall under a whole range of existing legislation (depending on the specific who, what and where). Bringing up biological weapon laws is just a gross rhetorical distraction from the fact you have absolutely no basis to accuse anyone of committing any kind of serious offences, let alone any involving those specific laws.

I also can't help noticing that you've skipped over the fact that you asserted the people who disagree with you refuse to read the legislation you referred to. I have now read it though, so on that at least, you were demonstrably wrong.

 

foia brought out gain-of-function research that fauci and his nih funded, last time I checked that is a crime.