> But COVID deaths on top have gotten us to the point of WWII death rates in 1943
Except, they didn't, as we discussed already.
> think failure to interpret the study correctly does not actually make it incorrect. Try reading the whole thing instead of cherry picking numbers to try to prove your point.
I don't need someone to interpret numbers for me, that's the difference. The rest of the 'study' is drivel. Not to mention, the data's already cherry picked.
> What's there to "believe"?
For starters, we have to take their numbers at face value. We know they're not aggressively collecting adverse reaction data, we know they're not doing much investigating vaccine caused death and illness, we know their numbers are most likely skewed to show the vaccines are beneficial. Despite this, the best they can come up with is a report that shows the mortality among vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated.
Except, they didn't, as we discussed already.
> think failure to interpret the study correctly does not actually make it incorrect. Try reading the whole thing instead of cherry picking numbers to try to prove your point.
I don't need someone to interpret numbers for me, that's the difference. The rest of the 'study' is drivel. Not to mention, the data's already cherry picked.
> What's there to "believe"?
For starters, we have to take their numbers at face value. We know they're not aggressively collecting adverse reaction data, we know they're not doing much investigating vaccine caused death and illness, we know their numbers are most likely skewed to show the vaccines are beneficial. Despite this, the best they can come up with is a report that shows the mortality among vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated.