Several solid examples, and you just want to whine about the sketchy one and ignore the point.

The fact that someone believes something absurd says it all.

Also, I contest that they are 'solid example'. Hillary isn't a serial killer. She probably has the morals of one, but if you discount all the people she killed outside the US, there is zero evidence for any of those claims.

Apparently you still can't get over how wrong you were about the "safe and effective" jab.

Actually, what I said stood up rather well. But you are forgiven, you probably have no idea what I said and are just being presumptuous.

The only thing I was wrong about is that I didn't realize mRNA was unnecessary for quickly developing a vaccine, since other countries developed one just as fast, if not faster, without mRNA. So it's clear why mRNA was used.

And again, you want to talk about one case where people might have gotten it wrong and ignore the mountains of cases where they didn't.

If people make claims that the Corona-vaccine is responsible for a death of someone who did not even take it, and people who died before it was out (the first time-traveling vaccine, who went back in time along with the Russians who write Joy Reid's blog), that says everything about how seriously you should take the claims of those same people when they blame every last death on the Corona vaccine, with no evidence.

You always argue like a leftist troll.

As if after people calling me far-right for a decade, I care what you think I argue like.