Rather than wage battle over duelling sources, I would lay out an argument based on scientific principles and the process of reason.

In no particular order, and of varying narrative potency:

• The trials are not over until 2023. Esp. if you are not at high risk, what's the reason not to wait and see what the outcome is?

• Does she know that, during the very brief pre-trials, most of the placebo group ended up being given the vaccine before the end of the trial? That's completely abnormal, and puts into question the overall results (if they were interested in results, which they were not...)

• Why are they encouraging (in some places) people to arbitrarily "mix and match" vaccine doses from different purveyors? This is also highly irregular, and unscientific given that a trial is still under way.

• Why are they saying it's "safe and effective" for pregnant women and children, when pregnant women and children were not part of the brief pre-trials? This is unscientific.

• Why is the UK saying that people who received placebos in the pre-trials now count as having been vaccinated? This is beyond unscientific into the absurd.

You can get into things like.. why are they letting in tens of thousands of illegals both in the US and Europe without testing, while citizens can't even board a bus without a test? Not serious or scientific,

• Why did the CDC openly declare that so-called vaxxed people should have their Covid PCR tests run at fewer cycles than people whose DNA hasn't yet been modified? Again, un-serious and un-scientific.

I could probably come up with another half-dozen, but these are just off the top of my head. Anyone who has had a science background should see these anomalies as glaring red flags that Something Is Not Right.

• oh yeah... No "drug" in history has had as complex a biological interaction as this, and it is completely uncharted territory... Yet it is the substance we are being ordered to assume into our bodies with the least safety testing of any drug, EVER.. for a disease that is among the least lethal EVER. This makes ZERO sense if one does not wish to impute nefarious motives.

If your aunt can come up with a logical answer to even one of these questions, I would be surprised, but any one of them being unanswerable gives the entire game away as bogus.

With all your research you've probably come across your own red flags to add to this list. Good luck!!

P.S. The new FDA ruling that the PCR test is not fit for purpose means that the gravity of the situation has been greatly over-estimated (we knew this, but this is proof).

P.P.S. (another pede reported) "As of May 7 2021: Cdc stops reporting Breakthrough cases unless they cause hospitalization or death:" https://archive.ph/Wz2hu You just stop testing what you don't want to know about? How can that be explained as scientific?

Rather than wage battle over duelling sources, I would lay out an argument based on scientific principles and the process of reason.

In no particular order, and of varying narrative potency:

• The trials are not over until 2023. Esp. if you are not at high risk, what's the reason not to wait and see what the outcome is?

• Does she know that, during the very brief pre-trials, most of the placebo group ended up being given the vaccine before the end of the trial? That's completely abnormal, and puts into question the overall results (if they were interested in results, which they were not...)

• Why are they encouraging (in some places) people to arbitrarily "mix and match" vaccine doses from different purveyors? This is also highly irregular, and unscientific given that a trial is still under way.

• Why are they saying it's "safe and effective" for pregnant women and children, when pregnant women and children were not part of the brief pre-trials? This is unscientific.

• Why is the UK saying that people who received placebos in the pre-trials now count as having been vaccinated? This is beyond unscientific into the absurd.

You can get into things like.. why are they letting in tens of thousands of illegals both in the US and Europe without testing, while citizens can't even board a bus without a test? Not serious or scientific,

• Why did the CDC openly declare that so-called vaxxed people should have their Covid PCR tests run at fewer cycles than people whose DNA hasn't yet been modified? Again, un-serious and un-scientific.

I could probably come up with another half-dozen, but these are just off the top of my head. Anyone who has had a science background should see these anomalies as glaring red flags that Something Is Not Right.

• oh yeah... No "drug" in history has had as complex a biological interaction as this, and it is completely uncharted territory... Yet it is the substance we are being ordered to assume into our bodies with the least safety testing of any drug, EVER.. for a disease that is among the least lethal EVER. This makes ZERO sense if one does not wish to impute nefarious motives.

If your aunt can come up with a logical answer to even one of these questions, I would be surprised, but any one of them being unanswerable gives the entire game away as bogus.

With all your research you've probably come across your own red flags to add to this list. Good luck!!

P.S. The new FDA ruling that the PCR test is not fit for purpose means that the gravity of the situation has been greatly over-estimated (we knew this, but this is proof).