"Human sized"?

I don't see at what your comment has anything to do with mine. You haven't explained anything

Your "explanation" was:

Then I briefly expanded on and amplified that point

You didn't expand on my point, nor amplified it. You talked about something else entirely. That's what my point is now. Your remark doesn't agree with mine, it barely even addresses it.

Not really. You just said some jabber about how "the news is scripted" blah blah.

All I'm saying is that news shouldn't include opinions. Don't use my soapbox to push your own agenda. If you wanna talk about this so bad, start a new thread

Not really sure how this relates to my point but thnx

News shouldn't be about sharing your opinions though. It should be about reporting the events that have taken place.

Classic

I wonder how long this narrative will last

How do you know?

How do you figure?

What is the likelihood you're just chatting with an intern?

What actions might the Executive or Judicial branches take at this time that would be prevented if the House were in session?

What actions will be taken? What happens when no actions are taken?

Rubber masks work in quick settings where you're not being watched by cameras and interactions are brief.

They don't work when pretending to be the literal president of the USA giving a speech lol

But public appearances and meet and greets sure.

Still no. Body doubles aren't used for speeches and public appearances.

"Rubber masks" this isn't mission impossible lol

Yeah body double as in for location, that's not a secret. That's something that even normies have known for a while.

What body double doesn't mean is "person pretending to be Clinton/Biden/whoever while they give their speeches."

The CIA admitted that the original Biden is dead, and all the speeches and stuff that we've been seeing is just an actor pretending to be him?

They tell a similar story, actually. Aside from one Moderna batch that had a big 15% ratio deaths/non, at 29 for 196.

That's an extreme outlier though. Most hover around 2%

Well, yeah, that's sort of the nature of stats. Increased volume = increased potential data output.

Also, the statement here is a little off:

5% of the batches appear to have produced 90% of the adverse reactions

This is true, but look closer at the data. Those 5% of batches also have about 90% of the doses administered. Look down the list, and the vast majority of batches only have a handful of doses that are being tracked. So, it's very reasonable to expect those top 5% to have most of the adverse events

I mean none of the major doses look like duds at all. They all have roughly similar ratios. A few outliers but none that are coming close to even 10% of afflictions.

Also, where is the data coming from? Is it constantly updated?

Right but at some point you can acknowledge some speculations as credible or not.

Dang...could there really be that many duds? Was that intentional or what?

I don't think anyone I know does any of that. How many duds were there?

Blue checks can just be bought though. Anyone on this forum can be a blue check

Does that mean just about everyone I know (and their families) got duds?

I would say it's far-fetched

You don't think that's far-fetched?