Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct by neglecting to document these facts.

I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries. Notice I didn't assert they died because of the vaccine because I don't know that for certain but its an interesting coincidence that is repeated.

You did make the same assertion for the second time however " but nothing in VAERS/the tip line is verified" How do you know this? Unless you have some insider baseball you aren't revealing?

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Maybe you need to make some financial disclosures?

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct.

I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries. Notice I didn't assert they died because of the vaccine because I don't know that for certain but its an interesting coincidence that is repeated.

You did make the same assertion for the second time however " but nothing in VAERS/the tip line is verified" How do you know this? Unless you have some insider baseball you aren't revealing?

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Maybe you need to make some financial disclosures?

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct.

I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries. Notice I didn't assert they died because of the vaccine because I don't know that for certain but its an interesting coincidence that is repeated.

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Maybe you need to make some financial disclosures?

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct.

I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries. Notice I didn't assert they died because of the vaccine but I don't know that for certain but its an interesting coincidence that is repeated.

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Maybe you need to make some financial disclosures?

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct.

I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries.

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Maybe you need to make some financial disclosures?

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct.

I partially agreed with what you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries.

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct when you leave out key details like that.

I partially agreed with you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries.

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are not "absolutely" correct.

I partially agreed with you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch of uneducated chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries.

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Didn't you just say "Nobody is being evasive about the data.". It's called a lie by omission (I'm talking about Reuters here on the 3 points I made: 1) VAX makers must report, 2 its illegal to false report and 3) lack of disclosure for 30+ billion conflict of interest. So no they are are not "absolutely" correct.

I partially agreed with you said about VAERS but you act like nobody is allowed to make reasonable layperson observations like we are all a bunch chimps. You also setup a straw man's argument using the 98 year old as example.

I gave concrete examples of healthy young people who did die after taking vaccine. That is a reasonable assumption I can make; there is no evidence of widespread false reporting like was stated in the article and inferred by you. I've read many many entries.

You completely ignored that part of what I was saying. VAERS isn't perfect but they aren't giving us anything else. I'm pretty confident the real data is far more frightening.