Why are you arguing with me? I don't have a substack, I haven't written any books on the subject. All these issues are addressed in more formal sources than my comments on substack. Why don't you go read RFK's book or watch one of Chris Martenson's compelling videos (pick one - he's done hundreds) and explain to them why their data analysis is wrong. I haven't dedicated my life to analyzing the data. I'm only consuming information and I have no audience. So I don't see why you're spending so much time trying to refute me. I have better things to do than explain why your logic sounds flawed, especially when there are many educated people who have devoted their lives to collecting the data and analyzing it piece by piece with people like me who want to engage with it and understand the details but don't have time to deovte to doing all the primary research.
If you really want to invalidate the mountains of data that I'm referring to, I suggest you talk to someone who has more of an audience and I will happily read your debate with them. RFK has a website where he welcomes corrections and criticisms of his research. Steve Kirsch's substack is literally right here. I'm not a spokesperson and I don't know why you feel I'm a worthy target for your attempts to fact check. You can keep arguing if you want but I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore - I have a life.
TLDR. As I've said repeatedly, I have a life. I don't have time to get into a long debate with you. I have justified my convictions - not beliefs, as those are based in faith and I don't do faith - to people I know in real life whose minds I care to inform or change. You are not among that group and I don't have time for your long-winded arguments.
The only thing I will say, in response to your previous comment, was that the "mountains of data" refer to population statistics, the large data sets that I've seen analyzed by the people I mentioned. The "obvious" vaccine injuries were specifically references to individual episodes, which I did clearly state if you'd bothered to read it.
But I have nothing else to say as I don't have time to read your rebuttals and respond to them. I'm offended that you're making gross assumptions about my "beliefs" based on exactly zero knowledge of me, simply because I disagreed with you online. If you really care about this issue, I suggest you talk to someone with an audience so you can actually have an impact on the world. If you're just a voyeur looking to psycho-analyze someone, you're barking up the wrong tree. Good bye.
Why are you arguing with me? I don't have a substack, I haven't written any books on the subject. All these issues are addressed in more formal sources than my comments on substack. Why don't you go read RFK's book or watch one of Chris Martenson's compelling videos (pick one - he's done hundreds) and explain to them why their data analysis is wrong. I haven't dedicated my life to analyzing the data. I'm only consuming information and I have no audience. So I don't see why you're spending so much time trying to refute me. I have better things to do than explain why your logic sounds flawed, especially when there are many educated people who have devoted their lives to collecting the data and analyzing it piece by piece with people like me who want to engage with it and understand the details but don't have time to deovte to doing all the primary research.
If you really want to invalidate the mountains of data that I'm referring to, I suggest you talk to someone who has more of an audience and I will happily read your debate with them. RFK has a website where he welcomes corrections and criticisms of his research. Steve Kirsch's substack is literally right here. I'm not a spokesperson and I don't know why you feel I'm a worthy target for your attempts to fact check. You can keep arguing if you want but I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore - I have a life.
TLDR. As I've said repeatedly, I have a life. I don't have time to get into a long debate with you. I have justified my convictions - not beliefs, as those are based in faith and I don't do faith - to people I know in real life whose minds I care to inform or change. You are not among that group and I don't have time for your long-winded arguments.
The only thing I will say, in response to your previous comment, was that the "mountains of data" refer to population statistics, the large data sets that I've seen analyzed by the people I mentioned. The "obvious" vaccine injuries were specifically references to individual episodes, which I did clearly state if you'd bothered to read it.
But I have nothing else to say as I don't have time to read your rebuttals and respond to them. I'm offended that you're making gross assumptions about my "beliefs" based on exactly zero knowledge of me, simply because I disagreed with you online. If you really care about this issue, I suggest you talk to someone with an audience so you can actually have an impact on the world. If you're just a voyeur looking to psycho-analyze someone, you're barking up the wrong tree. Good bye.