Well my opinion that, while interesting, my reality hasn't reflected the sort of world they're describing. It's hard to believe what they're saying when what I'm seeing is so different.
Both can be true, yes. Significant can be a relative term. A significant amount of people died in the Vietnam war as well, but since not many died relative to the population of the country, not many people have close ties to the vets KIA.
I think if there was clear data showing that a significant percentage of people have died or been injured who have also been 2+ boosted, that would be a pretty cut and dry piece of evidence. That information is certainly out there, as we are constantly tracking mortality rates, and vaccination status.
If, of the people who have been double boosted, a >99% of the population had gotten no such major side effects or injuries, I would consider it safe for mass deployment.
Which means, of the estimated (supposedly) 5 billion people who have been vaccinated, 10s of millions may very well have gotten side effect and it still be 99% safe. But, that's the firm piece of data we still need
I'll take a look! I've been reading a bit so far, and I find it curious that in the first segment they use EuroMOMO figures to talk about excess deaths, but don't divide them between those who actually got jabbed and those who didn't. Seems like that would be the slam dunk this article should have had in there by this point.
Also, the whole "prediction" thing that got taken down is a little weak.
Thanks, but I've seen these before. If you don't have the information on hand that's fine.
Well my opinion that, while interesting, my reality hasn't reflected the sort of world they're describing. It's hard to believe what they're saying when what I'm seeing is so different.
Both can be true, yes. Significant can be a relative term. A significant amount of people died in the Vietnam war as well, but since not many died relative to the population of the country, not many people have close ties to the vets KIA.
I think if there was clear data showing that a significant percentage of people have died or been injured who have also been 2+ boosted, that would be a pretty cut and dry piece of evidence. That information is certainly out there, as we are constantly tracking mortality rates, and vaccination status.
If, of the people who have been double boosted, a >99% of the population had gotten no such major side effects or injuries, I would consider it safe for mass deployment.
Which means, of the estimated (supposedly) 5 billion people who have been vaccinated, 10s of millions may very well have gotten side effect and it still be 99% safe. But, that's the firm piece of data we still need
I'll take a look! I've been reading a bit so far, and I find it curious that in the first segment they use EuroMOMO figures to talk about excess deaths, but don't divide them between those who actually got jabbed and those who didn't. Seems like that would be the slam dunk this article should have had in there by this point.
Also, the whole "prediction" thing that got taken down is a little weak.
I still don't see how this points to the vaccines being dangerous. If the death/injury rate is small, then it's not dangerous.