Let me see if I have this straight… We have two independent data sets that correlate closely. They fit the most straightforward explanation of events, namely that the number of infections is directly related to the number deaths. Then, despite this strong support for the infection incidence data from an independent data set, you want to …
Let me see if I have this straight… We have two independent data sets that correlate closely. They fit the most straightforward explanation of events, namely that the number of infections is directly related to the number deaths. Then, despite this strong support for the infection incidence data from an independent data set, you want to claim that it should be ignored because it was intentionally manipulated with "testing cycles".
Implicit in this claim is that someone had the prescient knowledge necessary to use "testing cycles" to skew infection counts to ensure they continued to correlate closely with all deaths attributed to C19, i.e. both vaccine-caused and true disease deaths, thus covering up evidence of the vaccine's harms. Specifically, the claimed manipulation would require prescient knowledge of the true, *future* numbers of infections and deaths.
This extraordinary claim is made without any evidence to support it, let alone the extraordinary evidence it requires. Nevermind that the claimed manipulation would have to have also been done concurrently in every other state's DPH *and* in every other nation using the mRNA vaccines.
And finally, let's not lose sight of what you're choosing to believe instead of the supposedly manipulated infection counts: an entirely artificial curve, trivially generated with "equations used to get the desired shapes". You can choose to believe *admittedly fabricated data* if you want; just don't ask the rest of us to.
You go through tortuously challenged mental gymnastics just to magically arrive at a conclusion that PCR testing cycles cannot be arbitrarily made in order to skew results. Take a break and step back for a minute
Ahh, yes, "take a break". The online tap-out du jour.
Before I let you out of this discursive armbar, I'll just point out that there is a MASSIVE difference between A/ PCR testing cycles can be arbitrarily made to skew results and B/ infection prevalence correlates with deaths attributed to C19 because someone was actively manipulating tests to achieve that result. You want to wave your hands and gesture in the direction of test manipulation to justify ignoring data that falsifies the deadly vaccine theory, because thinking through what that would actually entail for a moment reveals it to be, indeed, tortured.
I think Joel Smalley sums it up fairly convincingly for any critical thinker to arrive at a conclusion that “safe and effective” is just a Montra peddled buy those who either have something to gain or who worship the vaccine god. You might find a logic in Joel and Steve’s work that comfortably agrees with reality;
Let me see if I have this straight… We have two independent data sets that correlate closely. They fit the most straightforward explanation of events, namely that the number of infections is directly related to the number deaths. Then, despite this strong support for the infection incidence data from an independent data set, you want to claim that it should be ignored because it was intentionally manipulated with "testing cycles".
Implicit in this claim is that someone had the prescient knowledge necessary to use "testing cycles" to skew infection counts to ensure they continued to correlate closely with all deaths attributed to C19, i.e. both vaccine-caused and true disease deaths, thus covering up evidence of the vaccine's harms. Specifically, the claimed manipulation would require prescient knowledge of the true, *future* numbers of infections and deaths.
This extraordinary claim is made without any evidence to support it, let alone the extraordinary evidence it requires. Nevermind that the claimed manipulation would have to have also been done concurrently in every other state's DPH *and* in every other nation using the mRNA vaccines.
And finally, let's not lose sight of what you're choosing to believe instead of the supposedly manipulated infection counts: an entirely artificial curve, trivially generated with "equations used to get the desired shapes". You can choose to believe *admittedly fabricated data* if you want; just don't ask the rest of us to.
You go through tortuously challenged mental gymnastics just to magically arrive at a conclusion that PCR testing cycles cannot be arbitrarily made in order to skew results. Take a break and step back for a minute
Ahh, yes, "take a break". The online tap-out du jour.
Before I let you out of this discursive armbar, I'll just point out that there is a MASSIVE difference between A/ PCR testing cycles can be arbitrarily made to skew results and B/ infection prevalence correlates with deaths attributed to C19 because someone was actively manipulating tests to achieve that result. You want to wave your hands and gesture in the direction of test manipulation to justify ignoring data that falsifies the deadly vaccine theory, because thinking through what that would actually entail for a moment reveals it to be, indeed, tortured.
….or take one of today’s reports pouring in from around the world that are showing “safe and effective” is a lie that can no longer be denied;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/germans-severely-injured-covid-vaccines/
I think Joel Smalley sums it up fairly convincingly for any critical thinker to arrive at a conclusion that “safe and effective” is just a Montra peddled buy those who either have something to gain or who worship the vaccine god. You might find a logic in Joel and Steve’s work that comfortably agrees with reality;
https://metatron.substack.com/p/us-mortality-pre-and-post-vaccine
What explanation do you postulate for ACM’s sudden rise across the board?