‘Died Suddenly’? More Than 1-in-4 Think Someone They Know Died From COVID-19 Vaccines

Many times huh?

Once is enough huh?

But all true.

 

Yes

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Apparently, you don't understand statistics.

 

Obviously you don’t understand the age and preconditions distribution of covid deaths.

 

Canadians were looking at who died because of covid, not died with covid.

 

Still meaningless without age or preconditions.

 

When the hell are you going to start posting something that is accurate? Vaccination status deaths! Spamming this stock reply is a really feeble argument.

If you claim this spam about preconditions is relevant, then provide some proper reasoned debate instead of just chucking one liners at every post!

 

I have already done that.

 

Just the once. Many times. Nobody believes this crazy, contradictory, spammed reply.

You are clogging up the 7th thread in succession with one liners that say nothing.

 

I have said everything previously. I am not interested in your rabbit holes.

 

Nope. Either "once" as you have claimed many times or "multiple times" as you have claimed multiple times. Google "contradicting statements".

Honest debate seems to be the problem.

 

The debate is over. 1% vs 0.04%.

 

What debate? It takes reasoning to take part in a debate, not arm waving and evasion.

Nope. Reality vs made up quackery. I have no idea why your support for this continues without a scrap of evidence and constant meaningless statements.

 

Two orders of magnitude better results ends any debate.

 

But it's made up quackery. You said yourself they haven't tested the quack cocktail. @MuchAdo has tried several times to educate you about how none of the ingredients work, why it was supposed to keep people OUT of hospital, that once in hospital they get given things that actually DO work! Myself and @Bowerbird have pointed out numerous problems with your stubborn refusal to even debate any of this!

You seem to be afraid to answer simple things and keep spamming feeble answers. The "protocol" ingredients were all tested and you were given a whole host of studies showing they were not effective! You spammed "meaningless".

You were given explanations about how synergy and potentiation work and you simply ran away from answering. These are fundamentals to any group of medicines but you just keep playing this evasive game of spam one-liners without giving any insightful replies.

The OP is proven, this quackery just doesn't work! What possible motive can you have to keep disrupting thread after thread without supplying any PROPER evidence. "I have done" is simply a dishonest statement. "Once is enough" was also feeble, as book excerpts mean jack! Posted "multiple times" is clearly not only contradictory, but very deceptive. You have not.

I shall demonstrate once again how you are afraid to debate. One very simple question with follow up:

Do the protocols you refer to use synergy or potentiation? If neither then what?

 

It’s clinical data.

 

That is just nonsense. Clinical data is the method to record activity! It isn't the method of medical delivery.

Do the protocols you refer to use synergy or potentiation? If neither then what? Clinical data does not apply to the way the medicines work together!

 

It’s completely accurate. 1% vs 0.04%. Two orders of magnitude. Not even close.

 

I am asking what method of combination describes the so called protocol and you come out with gibberish. You have stated 50 or more times that individual tests of the components are meaningless which in itself is just wrong on multiple levels.

You say the whole thing should be tested. So what is it!? A synergistic objective, a potentiation objective or what?

I'm more certain than ever that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Do your own homework.

1% vs 0.04%.

 

No it is NOT

 

Ridiculous evasion.

That is just nothing to do with what is being asked and you know this. You absolutely do not know what you are talking about. It's dead simple.

When you take a group of medicines that work together but not individually.... they combine synergistically or with potentiation. You can't give an answer because neither work for the quacktail. So instead you just dump gibberish.

 

The data came from their clinic. Regardless of what you choose to call it - 99.96% vs 1%.

 

99.96% is not gibberish.