It’s actually not at all surprising that you aren’t seeing these results in your own life based on the statistics. Let’s say 500,000 dead is the correct number. I’m going to assume you are American. Well there are 300 million Americans (plus illegals). That means 0.17% (.0017) of Americans have died of the jab. So if you know 1000 vaccin…
It’s actually not at all surprising that you aren’t seeing these results in your own life based on the statistics. Let’s say 500,000 dead is the correct number. I’m going to assume you are American. Well there are 300 million Americans (plus illegals). That means 0.17% (.0017) of Americans have died of the jab. So if you know 1000 vaccinated people, probably 2 have died (well 1.7 but I think we can round up). Do you know 1000 vaccinated people? I certainly don’t. The sudden deaths or increased deaths are also happening in particular demographics in higher numbers. So it’s possible that even if you know 1000 vaccinated 80 year olds that you won’t see the 2 sudden deaths but if you know 1000 vaccinated young men you might see many more than 2.
In my own life while there are several new chronic conditions and a new cancer diagnosis in my family that I suspect are jab related there are no deaths. As far as my sphere or circle goes I haven’t seen it either. But I live in a pretty small town with a county population of about 10,000. My county is 37% jabbed so about 3700 are vaccinated. A quick trip through the obits for the last year or so shows there’s 4 suspicious sudden deaths in previously healthy adults. No mention of vaccination status in the obit but it’s a small town and I can confirm all the suspicious cases are of people who were fully vaccinated. So 4 deaths out of 3700 vaccinated would be below the highest average death reports, but at the same time most people in my town of 10,000 would say no one close to them has died of the jabs and unless they spend a lot of time reading obits (which to be fair is a bit of a hobby in these parts) they likely wouldn’t notice anything amiss.
I think the best way to discuss this when you aren’t seeing it in your life is to:
1.) Point out what I just did, that it is entirely likely that most people aren’t seeing or feeling these losses. But just because it hasn’t effected you doesn’t mean that 500,000 dead Americans isn’t a tragedy.
2.)Use particularly high profile cases especially those that are well documented as your example. The large number of soccer fatalities is worth brining up. The case Steve highlighted of the Northwestern student is very solid evidence of a huge problem even if it tells us nothing about the scope of the problem. The body builder (whose name escapes me at this moment) who said he would gladly be the guinea pig and if he died then you knew the jab wasn’t safe and then subsequently died post jab is a pretty compelling example.
3.) Point out how few fatalities and side effects have been acceptable for past vaccines as opposed to these jabs. It is exceptionally easy to find 100 examples of people in the US who without a doubt died due to the jabs and that number of deaths would have never been acceptable with previous vaccines. Even if these numbers are completely bogus even 200 dead Americans from these jabs is too many.
I don’t think there is anything about this paper that is very useful in convincing people that the jabs are not safe and effective. What this paper is useful for is in reducing confidence in the peer review process and in medical journals. The conclusions of the paper are way off base from what the survey actually measured. The paper never should have been accepted in the first place. However once accepted the problems with the paper should have been highlighted and the author should have been given a chance to respond and all of this should have been done publicly. (In the journal I receive this is typically done through letters to the editor.). If the editorial board wasn’t satisfied the paper should have been left up but with a disclaimer while further investigation was completed. If it was decided that the paper should be retracted then when the retraction was announced the precise reason for the retraction with detailed explanation should have been given. Nothing about this was handled properly which serves as yet another good reason to look at peer review and medical journals with a healthy dose of skepticism.
It’s actually not at all surprising that you aren’t seeing these results in your own life based on the statistics. Let’s say 500,000 dead is the correct number. I’m going to assume you are American. Well there are 300 million Americans (plus illegals). That means 0.17% (.0017) of Americans have died of the jab. So if you know 1000 vaccinated people, probably 2 have died (well 1.7 but I think we can round up). Do you know 1000 vaccinated people? I certainly don’t. The sudden deaths or increased deaths are also happening in particular demographics in higher numbers. So it’s possible that even if you know 1000 vaccinated 80 year olds that you won’t see the 2 sudden deaths but if you know 1000 vaccinated young men you might see many more than 2.
In my own life while there are several new chronic conditions and a new cancer diagnosis in my family that I suspect are jab related there are no deaths. As far as my sphere or circle goes I haven’t seen it either. But I live in a pretty small town with a county population of about 10,000. My county is 37% jabbed so about 3700 are vaccinated. A quick trip through the obits for the last year or so shows there’s 4 suspicious sudden deaths in previously healthy adults. No mention of vaccination status in the obit but it’s a small town and I can confirm all the suspicious cases are of people who were fully vaccinated. So 4 deaths out of 3700 vaccinated would be below the highest average death reports, but at the same time most people in my town of 10,000 would say no one close to them has died of the jabs and unless they spend a lot of time reading obits (which to be fair is a bit of a hobby in these parts) they likely wouldn’t notice anything amiss.
I think the best way to discuss this when you aren’t seeing it in your life is to:
1.) Point out what I just did, that it is entirely likely that most people aren’t seeing or feeling these losses. But just because it hasn’t effected you doesn’t mean that 500,000 dead Americans isn’t a tragedy.
2.)Use particularly high profile cases especially those that are well documented as your example. The large number of soccer fatalities is worth brining up. The case Steve highlighted of the Northwestern student is very solid evidence of a huge problem even if it tells us nothing about the scope of the problem. The body builder (whose name escapes me at this moment) who said he would gladly be the guinea pig and if he died then you knew the jab wasn’t safe and then subsequently died post jab is a pretty compelling example.
3.) Point out how few fatalities and side effects have been acceptable for past vaccines as opposed to these jabs. It is exceptionally easy to find 100 examples of people in the US who without a doubt died due to the jabs and that number of deaths would have never been acceptable with previous vaccines. Even if these numbers are completely bogus even 200 dead Americans from these jabs is too many.
I don’t think there is anything about this paper that is very useful in convincing people that the jabs are not safe and effective. What this paper is useful for is in reducing confidence in the peer review process and in medical journals. The conclusions of the paper are way off base from what the survey actually measured. The paper never should have been accepted in the first place. However once accepted the problems with the paper should have been highlighted and the author should have been given a chance to respond and all of this should have been done publicly. (In the journal I receive this is typically done through letters to the editor.). If the editorial board wasn’t satisfied the paper should have been left up but with a disclaimer while further investigation was completed. If it was decided that the paper should be retracted then when the retraction was announced the precise reason for the retraction with detailed explanation should have been given. Nothing about this was handled properly which serves as yet another good reason to look at peer review and medical journals with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Thank you for your long and thorough answer, appreciated!