It was clear long ago from Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own safety data that the ‘placebo’ was inducing death, of all things. Check this out as a reminder.
Did you check your own link? The image shows fewer people dying in the placebo group.
Can our 'critical thinkers' here apply some of their 'critical thinking' not just to the MSM, but also to random sources online - even when they like what those random sources are saying?
You're not engaging with this on a sensible level, and I'm putting that kindly. Far more people died to the 'placebo' shot of the second dose than the first dose, 15 vs 3. To insist this is random you have to ignore this as well as the other inexplicable 'adverse reactions' which keep happening from placebo, mentioned here
Why are you comparing the placebo 1st shot to the vaccine's 2nd shot? 3 died after the placebo, 2 after the vaccine. For the second, 15 died after the placebo, 16 after the vaccine.
You do know that some time passed in between, right? People die as time passes. Unfortunate but true.
Why are you assuming the time frame they're looking at when counting 2nd shot deaths is any different from the 1st shot?
By all means, do tell me about the time frame.
I just find it strange that you are hyperventilating about 'deadly placebos' when the death rate is exactly the same as for the vaccine. I assume this is because you want to be able to argue that the vaccine is a net negative, rather than having no effect.
you're ignoring such as 58% systemic reaction rate from placebo, 89% hand-foot-mouth disease rate from placebo, other adverse events from placebo and more?
Because I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of their 'studies', but I'm particularly skeptical of random images provided without context to someone who doesn't know anything about it (like you and me).
Sensible yet?
No, but it's clear you insist on believing what you want to believe.
Did you check your own link? The image shows fewer people dying in the placebo group.
Can our 'critical thinkers' here apply some of their 'critical thinking' not just to the MSM, but also to random sources online - even when they like what those random sources are saying?
You're not engaging with this on a sensible level, and I'm putting that kindly. Far more people died to the 'placebo' shot of the second dose than the first dose, 15 vs 3. To insist this is random you have to ignore this as well as the other inexplicable 'adverse reactions' which keep happening from placebo, mentioned here
Why are you comparing the placebo 1st shot to the vaccine's 2nd shot? 3 died after the placebo, 2 after the vaccine. For the second, 15 died after the placebo, 16 after the vaccine.
You do know that some time passed in between, right? People die as time passes. Unfortunate but true.
I'm comparing the placebo's 1st shot to the placebo's 2nd shot.
Why are you assuming the time frame they're looking at when counting 2nd shot deaths is any different from the 1st shot? Why are you acting like I'm talking about this in isolation rather than as part of a range of events you're ignoring such as 58% systemic reaction rate from placebo, 89% hand-foot-mouth disease rate from placebo, other adverse events from placebo and more? Why are you acting as if researchers haven't casually mentioned using 'empty lipid nanoparticles during vaccination'?
Sensible yet?
By all means, do tell me about the time frame.
I just find it strange that you are hyperventilating about 'deadly placebos' when the death rate is exactly the same as for the vaccine. I assume this is because you want to be able to argue that the vaccine is a net negative, rather than having no effect.
Because I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of their 'studies', but I'm particularly skeptical of random images provided without context to someone who doesn't know anything about it (like you and me).
No, but it's clear you insist on believing what you want to believe.