What do you think this proves?Just saw this, figured may be of interest to some and at least maybe spark a tiny bit of skepticism of this bullshit...
British Government Study Confirms Covid-19 Vaccine Risk: Infections INCREASE in Fortnight after Jab - UpdatedGuest post by Dr Niall McCrae Anyone raising concern about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines faces derision as an ‘anti-vaxxer’, but the real extremists are those who refuse to hear evidence that something is going badly wrong with this mass experimental encroachment on the sanctity of the body...www.thegatewaypundit.com
"The clearest indications came from small countries that strove to vaccinate their entire adult population. The British enclave of Gibraltar was supplied with the Pfizer vaccine on 16th January and the elderly were swiftly jabbed. Suddenly this tiny state, home to 33 thousand, had the worst Covid-19 morality in the world (2761 per million). From merely 9 deaths in December, now almost a hundred have died. The health minister angrily denied claims that the vaccine was killing people, but eventually admitted that some deaths had occurred soon after the jab."
As I saidMaybe you didn't catch the last bit of that article:
"This needs proper scrutiny, not reckless denial by those who are meant to protect us. This defensiveness and censorship is how the thalidomide scandal arose."
Oh, and trust wikipidia, you say? what about the your low-IQ population concern? Not concerned about the cognitive abilities of the so-called fact checkers?
I'll stick to keeping my own counsel on those judgements, but thank you for the effort to enlighten and save me from wasting my time in areas already clarified by those more expert than myself - good catch.
Some of us are justifiably comfortable with our own powers of cognition and have no need of "fact checkers" in brown shirts; the 'subtle' tricks of manipulation which many attempt to push (very clumsily, to be sure) are actually pretty friggin obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the subjects - and they come across as ignorant, desperate, unoriginal, and deliberately disengenuous...
btw, some behaviours and agrument structure presented really go towards ruling out simple ignorance, and point to something far uglier as a personal motivation....just sayin.
ETA: since we all love Wikipedia (it's actually great, when the information has not been ideologically compromised), here's a link to an issue mentioned in TGP article (disclaimer - hadn't heard of this prior to reading article, but then, that's not my field):
How long would one expect it to take for that page to be "corrected"?
But who knows...
What's mentioned in the article may be true but to me it is more important is what they fail to question. It only gives the information that would support their viewpoint.As I said
" Perhaps this is reliable......or not. "
Very defensive. You believe, okay with me. Babylon bee may also be a good source. Suit yourself.
That's just it - nothing is proven one way or another at this time.What do you think this proves?
Not saying you don't have a point (the demographic mentioned in the article was the elderly), but what I find far more telling is the willingness (and/or lack thereof) to present information which can then be analyzed scientifically by independent parties...What's mentioned in the article may be true but to me it is more important is what they fail to question. It only gives the information that would support their viewpoint.
What was the demographic of those who died?
Where, when and by whom were they exposed to the virus.