The way I'm looking at this, the paper is describing, to a T, real life conditions that the informed already know exists. Clots, shingles, liver disease, et al. all on the rise. Just as the paper confirms.
Oh, I agree. I'm just wondering about the this study being labeled an MIT study, when there is only one scientist connected to MIT and it doesn't specify that the study itself is from MIT. And that particular scientist is not medical (that I can tell) and is strongly associated with many of the groups that we find suspicious.
The way I'm looking at this, the paper is describing, to a T, real life conditions that the informed already know exists. Clots, shingles, liver disease, et al. all on the rise. Just as the paper confirms.
Oh, I agree. I'm just wondering about the this study being labeled an MIT study, when there is only one scientist connected to MIT and it doesn't specify that the study itself is from MIT. And that particular scientist is not medical (that I can tell) and is strongly associated with many of the groups that we find suspicious.
You're right. It's a preprint paper and shouldn't be labeled as an MIT study.
And if you share this with normies, they'll Google Peter A McCullough and promptly ignore it.
Edit: And I see u/TCPatriot said the same thing 5 hours ago.
Qmulus is an MIT program. Fun name...