Sociopath Community

Spatial Mind said: 

Tell that to the manufacturer of the Johnson&Johnson vaccine.

When such things take time to make, and they all come out in the same week. I will be the one who decides if I find that concerning. 

Also the virus is engineered, not from a bat.

Finally. As it turns out, I never needed the vaccine.

The Johnson & Johnson problem does not prove your broader claim. It proves that different vaccines had different risk profiles and that safety monitoring identified a rare clotting complication. That is why its use was restricted and eventually withdrawn. It does not invalidate Pfizer or Moderna. They did not all come out in the same week. Pfizer was authorized on December 11, 2020, Moderna on December 18, and Johnson & Johnson on February 27, 2021. 

"The virus was engineered” is not an established fact. A laboratory-related origin remains possible because necessary evidence is incomplete, but that is different from genetic engineering. The WHO’s 2025 assessment said the genomic evidence does not support SARS-CoV-2 being genetically modified, while the weight of available evidence favored zoonotic spillover. Saying you “never needed” the vaccine because you survived without it is hindsight, not evidence. Preventive measures reduce probabilities before the outcome is known. You cannot determine from one person’s eventual survival that the earlier risk was nonexistent or that vaccination had no population-level benefit.

Google Patents = Coronavirus.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10130701B2/en

Yes, it is engineered.

https://archive.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

If you know you know. 

Big story unfolding but the mainstream media doesn't really want to deal with it. When you're told this happens you'll accept it with the flock. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Google Patents = Coronavirus.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10130701B2/en

Yes, it is engineered.

https://archive.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

If you know you know. 

Big story unfolding but the mainstream media doesn't really want to deal with it. When you're told this happens you'll accept it with the flock. 

That patent does not prove SARS-CoV-2 was engineered. “Coronavirus” is a virus family, not the name of one specific virus. The patent concerns an attenuated avian infectious-bronchitis coronavirus intended for poultry vaccines, with reduced pathogenicity in birds. It predates COVID-19 and does not describe SARS-CoV-2.

Your intelligence report also does not say SARS-CoV-2 was engineered. It says both natural exposure and a laboratory-associated incident remained plausible, while most analysts assessed that the virus was probably not genetically engineered. It specifically says they had found neither diagnostic engineering signatures nor a plausible pre-existing coronavirus backbone.

The report even notes that previous WIV work on chimeric viruses does not establish that SARS-CoV-2 itself was engineered.

So you linked one unrelated poultry-vaccine patent and one report that contradicts your certainty. “If you know, you know” does not bridge that evidentiary gap, and predicting that everyone will eventually agree with you is not evidence either.

The origin of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) remains unresolved. There is no definitive proof for either of the two leading hypotheses, and major institutions continue to disagree.

If it looks like a duck, it's a duck. 

That is the Wuhan special.

Also.

I'm glad I never took the vaccine.  

Spatial Mind said: 

The origin of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) remains unresolved. There is no definitive proof for either of the two leading hypotheses, and major institutions continue to disagree. If it looks like a duck, it's a duck. Also, I'm glad I never took the vaccine.  

“Unresolved” does not mean “engineered.” A lab-related origin is possible, but that is separate from genetic modification, which has not been established. “If it looks like a duck” is suspicion, not proof. And being glad you skipped the vaccine is a personal outcome, not evidence that the vaccine was unnecessary or ineffective.

Easily it's engineered. It came out when there was a demand for it. This isn't something you can see. 

.

.

.

The people who dismiss conspiracy theories, are the ones who lack critical thinking skills and those are the people prone to knowing less. 

Fauci is getting slammed, and this WILL upset a lot of people. Some will never accept what's about to happen. This stuff doesn't surprise me.

He was pardoned from Biden ( Biden owed him. Not gonna say why it's too much and would ruin this thread )

Corruption is a real thing. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Easily it's engineered. It came out when there was a demand for it. This isn't something you can see. The people who dismiss conspiracy theories, are the ones who lack critical thinking skills and those are the people prone to knowing less. Fauci is getting slammed, and this WILL upset a lot of people. Some will never accept what's about to happen. This stuff doesn't surprise me. He was pardoned from Biden. Biden owed him. Not gonna say why it's too much and would ruin this thread. Corruption is a real thing. 

You are replacing evidence with inevitability. Saying COVID “came out when there was demand for it” does not establish that it was engineered, and saying it is not something people can see makes the claim conveniently impossible to test. Rejecting an unsupported conspiracy theory is not a lack of critical thinking. Critical thinking means separating suspicion from evidence, considering alternative explanations, and allowing a claim to be disproven. Saying everyone who disagrees simply knows less only shields your conclusion from scrutiny.

The same applies to Fauci. A hostile committee publicly insulting him, swearing at him, treating guilt as predetermined, and threatening contempt when he refuses to supply usable sound bites looks far more like a kangaroo court than a neutral investigation. Yet you do not describe that exercise of power as corruption because it targets someone you already dislike. Your use of “corruption” is selective in general. You recognize it when Biden pardons Fauci, but not when wealth disparity lets a small class dominate institutions, when authoritarian authorities conceal themselves and avoid accountability, when anti-scientific and anti-vaccine politics endanger public health, or when the state restricts abortion and bodily autonomy. Those are apparently acceptable when they align with your preferred side. So “corruption is real” is too vague to support anything. You are not applying a consistent principle against corruption. You are using the word for power exercised by people you oppose, while renaming similar or worse abuses as justice when they are directed at your enemies. “Something big is about to happen” and “some people will never accept it” are predictions designed to make the theory feel inevitable, not evidence that it is true.

It's proven that I can't say anything to you without it being dismissed, that's a fact. I already told you I don't see any point in talking to you really.

Fauci on the other hand, will get what's coming to him for the same reasons. End of discussion. 

Spatial Mind said: 

It's proven that I can't say anything to you without it being dismissed, that's a fact. I already told you I don't see any point in talking to you really. Fauci on the other hand, will get what's coming to him for the same reasons. End of discussion. 

Your claims are being rejected because the evidence you provided does not establish them, not because you said them. The patent was about an avian coronavirus, the intelligence report did not conclude SARS-CoV-2 was engineered, and predictions about what will happen to Fauci are not proof. Saying “he’ll get what’s coming to him” also confirms that you view the hearing as punishment rather than an investigation. You have already decided the verdict, so anything that does not support it is dismissed as blindness or corruption. That is the opposite of the critical thinking you claim others lack. You can end the discussion, but that does not turn unsupported certainty into fact.

Of course my claims will be rejected. 

Still it's happening.