Oh, I'm sorry, when I said it was proven, I didn't mean you! You ignored it all. How "short your memory" is! This crap was brought up in copious detail a few months back!
Please link to it. All the alternative sites say the deaths and injuries started after the rollout. https://naturalnews.com/search.asp?query=rollout&x=0&y=0
Bring up the search function - more. Search word "rollout", member name mine. Brought up numerous times, most of the bulk was in the "nurse" thread. Well fancy that. Batshit in batshit out. BIBO.
This is the US rollout! The orange line shows excess mortality calculated from the grey line data! Now please stop evading this dead simple thing and kindly answer the post: Vaccine rollout began in earnest in January and over a month the spike tails off. I am not claiming correlation, merely that the damn vaccine OBVIOUSLY hasn't caused any excess mortality!
That graph is not very clear. I've never seen such an unclear graph. I remember discussing this graph with you before but I can't find the discussion. Could you link to it?
I showed you how to find it. The TOTALLY OBVIOUS graph shows exactly the opposite of what this foolish claim of yours suggests. Your bizarre "failure" to understand the faint grey lines show previous years is not even relevant.
It's somewhere in here. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?search/80943186/&q=rollout&o=date&c[user][0]=54744 It would take me a while to find it. If you know where it is, please link to it. This is the only graph I've ever seen that I couldn't understand just by looking at it. Please explain why the info the graphs in my links* is foolish. Why don't you just explain it? * https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-08...en-died-suddenly-after-covid-jab-rollout.html https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-03...hs-recorded-globally-covid-19-injections.html https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-02-22-adverse-events-mrna-covid-vaccine-trials-disabilities.html
Uhuh. Took me 30 seconds. I gave you the big clue, in the "nurse" thread! But seriously, just don't bother. You denied and evaded first time round, what do you think has changed! Just staggering how anyone can struggle to understand something so damn obvious. The only line to worry about is the reddish covid19-related line. The grey ones are for reference of previous 10 years. If you need further explanation you should probably return to education. The spike in deaths occurs BEFORE the January rollout.
Ok. I get it now. If the info in your graph isn't bogus, why do all these doctors say they didn't see an increase in cancer until after the vaccine rollout. Your info is from a mainstream* source. The mainstream is a bunch of known liars. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798
Yawn. Oh no, not the "bogus info" batshit claim! "All these doctors"? So the peak in excess deaths in the US is 1 month before rollout and you think there should be a significant alert of immediate cancer? What a totally absurd observation! Most other countries also show predominantly a covid19 peak just before vaccination rollout! This data was used by a totally useless conspiracy website and spammed here accordingly (numerous antivax members all chimed in!), but suddenly when somebody looks at the data in detail and finds it doesn't do what was claimed - "it might be bogus". MEH! Circular reasoning used by you about 500 times. ALL your info is from the disinformation-related-batshit "alternative" media and REALLY are known for the most appalling lies/disinformation and inept claims. Addressing any neutrals: The covid19 virus has been studied against its effects on cancer and there is some correlation. During covid19 pandemic the in-hospital care system took a long break where routine observations could and should have identified early stage cancers.
Oh! Dear! You haven’t just linked to “Naturalnews”? Lols! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/
What “doctors”? List them because if their names are Stella Immanuel or Joseph Mercola be aware that they both have a huge financial interest in selling “alternative therapies”
That's the part that may be bogus. I'm not going to rule it out yet but it has to be verified. Linking to a mainstream source that agrees with it is not verifying it as mainstream sources are all under the control of the deep state. Did you get this from a mainstream source?
Oh! For……. The “deep state” does not run every country in the world!!! The pattern was repeated ACROSS THE GLOBE!
How can you have failed to notice this already! Proving, not that any were needed, that you simply ignore inconvenient data. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/this-nurse-says-she-saw-the-covid-vaccine-causing-injuries.621607/page-7#post-1075018220 You admit 8 of them were before and you claim some were after (hogwash), but what world of crazy crap do you claim someone gets cancer a month after a vaccination!? Argentina: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Australia: Bulk of first dose no correlation and ACM actually tails off! Bolivia: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Brazil: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Chile: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Colombia: Numerous significant ACM spikes occurred before vaccine rollout, largest spike began BEFORE rollout! Ecuador: Ludicrous that you even post this! ACM spike occurred a year before vaccine rollout! Malaysia: Looks close, but once again the ACM spike began BEFORE vaccine rollout! New Zealand: Not even close to a correlation! Paraguay: ACM spike BEFORE rollout! Peru: Ridiculous, not even close! Philippines: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Singapore: ACM spikes occurred well after vaccine rollout and showed no correlation whatsoever! South Africa: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Suriname: No correlation and the main ACM spike began and reached near its peak before vaccine rollout! Thailand: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Continuation has zero statistical correlation! Uruguay: Spike appears to occur at the same time, but the correlation between dose and ACM is not even close to significant. Continued spikes show zero correlation. So, your big wall of "data" actually proves that the damn vaccines CANNOT have been the cause! Here are the first 3 countries (no point in redoing the rest if you can't be honest enough to admit the undeniable)! Argentina: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout! Australia: Bulk of first dose no correlation and ACM actually tails off! Bolivia: ACM spike occurred before vaccine rollout!
Here's another discussion about those graphs. That person does a good job of analysing them. What is the source of those graphs? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ence-with-covid.613193/page-7#post-1074580917 Those doctors were seeing things happen first-hand. They knew when their patients were vaccinated and when they started getting sick. You don't seem to think this means anything.
Pure denial. Every single time. Says who? I know it doesn't! You seem to disregard every piece of contradictory evidence!
Sooooo “sum bloke on da internetz” knows more about this than all the experts in all those countries?
You haven't shown any evidence that the doctors didn't know when their patients had been vaccinated. What kind of answer is this? Why don't you analyse what he says?
No that is not how this works YOU have to show evidence that they have controlled for that factor. That is how research works - you show or at least discuss in the research what were the confounding factors
So you're going to dismiss info such as this... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...vaccine-causes-cancer.622137/#post-1075127704 ...because you can't prove that the doctors knew when their patients had been vaccinated. I sounds like you have a foregone conclusion.
Evidence? Where? I see a completely lying disinformation website. Why don't you summarize it into neat bullet points and doctors? All I see is sources that have had their conclusions and statements distorted by a disgusting conspiracy-junk article! One doctor please and one patient. You clearly haven't even read the horsehit you have cited!
You seem to be less than objective. The viewers can look at all the info on page #1 a consider your opinion of it and come to their own conclusions.
