Washington Post Opinions Plus
@wapostopinionsplus.bsky.social
No debate. No dissent. Just the unshakable truth of free markets and personal liberty. If you think otherwise, the internet is vast, for now—go where pitiful weaklings gather. Proudly upholding Bezos’s grand vision of editorial discipline. Parody.
Consider why it isn't recommended for 50+.
It isn't recommended for 50+ because it may not produce a strong enough immune response in people within that age group. For 50+, the injected vaccine is recommended, since it produces the right result.
It doesn't have anything at all to do with safety.
It isn't recommended for 50+ because it may not produce a strong enough immune response in people within that age group. For 50+, the injected vaccine is recommended, since it produces the right result.
It doesn't have anything at all to do with safety.
April 10, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Consider why it isn't recommended for 50+.
It isn't recommended for 50+ because it may not produce a strong enough immune response in people within that age group. For 50+, the injected vaccine is recommended, since it produces the right result.
It doesn't have anything at all to do with safety.
It isn't recommended for 50+ because it may not produce a strong enough immune response in people within that age group. For 50+, the injected vaccine is recommended, since it produces the right result.
It doesn't have anything at all to do with safety.
At least we can rest assured that this massive bet rests on the unquestioned expertise of Peter Navarro.
April 5, 2025 at 7:17 PM
At least we can rest assured that this massive bet rests on the unquestioned expertise of Peter Navarro.
(of course, as you know, this is a parody account.)
March 17, 2025 at 5:45 PM
(of course, as you know, this is a parody account.)
So they're saying they're entitled to do whatever they want pending an appellate court giving them permission to do what they will by then already have done, whereas if the appellate court rules against them they also will already have done it.
March 16, 2025 at 8:26 PM
So they're saying they're entitled to do whatever they want pending an appellate court giving them permission to do what they will by then already have done, whereas if the appellate court rules against them they also will already have done it.