It doesn't fit their narrative. If they didn't like what the data says, they should state what the unaccounted biases and risk factors are. The data doesn't lie but politicians and statisticians will bend the narrative the way they want it to. If the report showed that the 1st and 2nd dosed subjects weren't associated with higher deaths than unvaccinated, they wouldn't have put that footnote there.

If they didn't want us to consider the data, why did they put it in the report? They could have just excluded it. They could've come up with a bs reason why the data shows people with 1 dose or 2 doses are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated. But they're not, they just have a crybaby footnote that says "The rates in Table 16 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors."

What biases and risk factors? Give me the details, that's what the report is for. The data doesn't lie, but the report writers do to fit a narrative. That's not science that's politics. I look at the the data and from that data I can mathematically prove that people with their 1st or 2nd doses are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated.

The scientific method:

If I get a dose of covid-19 then I will have a higher likelihood of death than the unvaccinated because [the vaccine] is causing people to get sick and die.

Those who make it through the 1st and 2nd dose genocide will be much likelier to survive the covid-19 booster shot.

It doesn't fit their narrative. If they didn't like what the data says, they should state what the unaccounted biases and risk factors are. The data doesn't lie but politicians and statisticians will bend the narrative the way they want it to. If the report showed that the 1st and 2nd dosed subjects weren't associated with higher deaths than unvaccinated, they wouldn't have put that footnote there.

If they didn't want us to consider the data, why did they put it in the report? They could have just excluded it. They could've come up with a bs reason why the data shows people with 1 dose or 2 doses are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated. But they're not, they just have a crybaby footnote that says "The rates in Table 16 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors."

What biases and risk factors? Give me the details, that's what the report is for. The data doesn't lie, but the report writers do to fit a narrative. That's not science that's politics. I look at the the data and from that data I can mathematically prove that people with their 1st or 2nd doses are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated.

The scientific method:

If I get a dose of covid-19 then I will have a higher likelihood of death than the unvaccinated because [the vaccine] causing people to get sick and die.

Those who make it through the 1st and 2nd dose genocide will be much likelier to survive the covid-19 booster shot.

It doesn't fit their narrative. If they didn't like what the data says, they should state what the unaccounted biases and risk factors are. The data doesn't lie but politicians and statisticians will bend the narrative the way they want it to. If the report showed that the 1st and 2nd dosed subjects weren't associated with higher deaths than unvaccinated, they wouldn't have put that footnote there.

If they didn't want us to consider the data, why did they put it in the report? They could have just excluded it. They could've come up with a bs reason why the data shows people with 1 dose or 2 doses are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated. But they're not, they just have a crybaby footnote that says "The rates in Table 16 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors."

What biases and risk factors? Give me the details, that's what the report is for. The data doesn't lie, but the report writers do to fit a narrative. That's not science that's politics. I look at the the data and from that data I can mathematically prove that people with their 1st or 2nd doses are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated.

The scientific method:

If I get a dose of covid-19 then I will have a higher likelihood of death than the unvaccinated because [it's the vaccine].

It doesn't fit their narrative. If they didn't like what the data says, they should state what the unaccounted biases and risk factors are. The data doesn't lie but politicians and statisticians will bend the narrative the way they want it to.

If they didn't want us to consider the data, why did they put it in the report? They could have just excluded it. They could've come up with a bs reason why the data shows people with 1 dose or 2 doses are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated. But they're not, they just have a crybaby footnote that says "The rates in Table 16 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors."

What biases and risk factors? Give me the details, that's what the report is for. The data doesn't lie, but the report writers do to fit a narrative. That's not science that's politics.

It doesn't fit their narrative. If they didn't like what the data says, they should state what the unaccounted biases and risk factors are. The data doesn't lie but politicians and statisticians will bend the narrative the way they want it to.