That is very disappointing. If they knew then they're a pair of c..ts as we say in Australia.
Still not all lost because the devil is in the details. You now have a relevant start date to go from, they would have stopped reporting on this for a reason and I suspect the reason is it's negative narrative.
i.e.
NSW Australia last reported vaxx status was approx 802 vaxxed to 0 unvaxxed. Statistically impossible you'd think especially with the statistical fraud. Except if that negative efficacy (drug induced AIDS was real)
I don't hold a grudge against Monsieur's Fenton and Neil, I was just jibber-jabbing at them, tongue-in-cheek. But it really irked me to find out how BMJ stopped reporting the measles deaths, while also leaving the table there with either a "zero" in the cell, or a blank.
That's just bad science. Imagine a referee beginning a statement after a certain match:
"And the winner is _____ ."
After a long pause, onlookers then ask the referee: "Who is the winner?"
The referee then says "Oh, I wasn't going to complete the sentence. I have stopped reporting winners ever since 1948. But I thought it okay to begin the sentence, like usual, leaving it as an open question as to whether I was going to finish it or not."
The onlookers then throw eggs and rotten tomatoes at the referee. Because that is bad behavior.
Fair enough and politely said. Personally if the death rate isn't an explosion back then before sanitation and education made a difference perhaps what you thought is still accurate
That is very disappointing. If they knew then they're a pair of c..ts as we say in Australia.
Still not all lost because the devil is in the details. You now have a relevant start date to go from, they would have stopped reporting on this for a reason and I suspect the reason is it's negative narrative.
i.e.
NSW Australia last reported vaxx status was approx 802 vaxxed to 0 unvaxxed. Statistically impossible you'd think especially with the statistical fraud. Except if that negative efficacy (drug induced AIDS was real)
I don't hold a grudge against Monsieur's Fenton and Neil, I was just jibber-jabbing at them, tongue-in-cheek. But it really irked me to find out how BMJ stopped reporting the measles deaths, while also leaving the table there with either a "zero" in the cell, or a blank.
That's just bad science. Imagine a referee beginning a statement after a certain match:
"And the winner is _____ ."
After a long pause, onlookers then ask the referee: "Who is the winner?"
The referee then says "Oh, I wasn't going to complete the sentence. I have stopped reporting winners ever since 1948. But I thought it okay to begin the sentence, like usual, leaving it as an open question as to whether I was going to finish it or not."
The onlookers then throw eggs and rotten tomatoes at the referee. Because that is bad behavior.
Fair enough and politely said. Personally if the death rate isn't an explosion back then before sanitation and education made a difference perhaps what you thought is still accurate