The main problem with the whole argument you presented from top to bottom is the core assumption that the data is any good. The reality is it was all distorted by range of financial incentives and political pressures. The only data that is half-way reliable is the all-cause mortality data and even that if you read the small print from St…
The main problem with the whole argument you presented from top to bottom is the core assumption that the data is any good. The reality is it was all distorted by range of financial incentives and political pressures. The only data that is half-way reliable is the all-cause mortality data and even that if you read the small print from Statistics Canada is that it is preliminary and thus don't draw any conclusions from it. Even my other post fall prey to this.
They reality is there are even holes in the all-cause mortality data that are large and varying by region. Furthermore if the manufacturing quality of the alleged vaccines was as poor and as wide a range of toxicity as some think then that muddies the data even further requiring one to do highly localized epidemiology studies in great detail across the country to sort it out. Rancourt and his team at Correlation Research did the best job so far and show they scale of effort needed but multiply that by 10 or even 100X the effort to really get to the bottom of things.
My simplistic posts talking about the BC Senior's Advocate data of course also assume the data is valid which it is not. The data is good enough to make the point to the officials if we take their data a face value, which they seem to want us to do, then it actually says the opposite of what they represented to us (at least in BC Canada). The problem is they still have that darn fine print saying the data is all preliminary.
The main problem with the whole argument you presented from top to bottom is the core assumption that the data is any good. The reality is it was all distorted by range of financial incentives and political pressures. The only data that is half-way reliable is the all-cause mortality data and even that if you read the small print from Statistics Canada is that it is preliminary and thus don't draw any conclusions from it. Even my other post fall prey to this.
They reality is there are even holes in the all-cause mortality data that are large and varying by region. Furthermore if the manufacturing quality of the alleged vaccines was as poor and as wide a range of toxicity as some think then that muddies the data even further requiring one to do highly localized epidemiology studies in great detail across the country to sort it out. Rancourt and his team at Correlation Research did the best job so far and show they scale of effort needed but multiply that by 10 or even 100X the effort to really get to the bottom of things.
My simplistic posts talking about the BC Senior's Advocate data of course also assume the data is valid which it is not. The data is good enough to make the point to the officials if we take their data a face value, which they seem to want us to do, then it actually says the opposite of what they represented to us (at least in BC Canada). The problem is they still have that darn fine print saying the data is all preliminary.