No, but occams razor says the simplest explantion is most likely the correct one, and I find the reality of increasing numbers to be the simplest explanation.

That's not how medical science is supposed to work.

We don't guesswork efficacy rates based on hypotheticals and then release the drugs into the public and try to figure it out later.

I can't even believe this has to be explained, but SAFETY COMES FIRST.

That means that no one in their right mind should put anything in their body before control studies are done, placebo studies are done, and longitudinal studies are done.

Hence, Occam's Razor tells us that if you don't have publicly available records for any of the aforementioned studies related to efficacy rates, then you have no argument about efficacy at all.

Furthermore, what studies have been done actually tells us that the vaccines can reduce antibodies efficacy against Covid: https://www.cure-hub.com/post/sars-cov-2-vaccines-breakthrough-infections-and-lasting-natural-immunity

You can't argue on behalf of efficacy for an untested drug when there are no studies available, especially when the drugs contain graphene oxide and trypanosoma, which can kill you if they get into the venous system: https://archive.md/Pl7pH

This is part of the problem with today's culture, though. People are indoctrinated to believe disinformation over following through with the basic scientific method: ergo, asking questions first before believing lies.

I shouldn't have had to ask you the question I did, YOU should have asked that first before assuming untested drugs have any efficacy rates at all, or that these drugs aren't actually causing people's immune systems to be lowered so they're more susceptible to mutated variants.

Let me ask you these questions:

• In the absence of any publicly available data, why do you believe the efficacy of these drugs at all? Based on what?

• How do you know the placebo effect isn't taking place?

• How do you know natural immunity isn't simply doing its job?

• How do you know other drugs aren't affecting any of the positive/negative rates being reported by the media?

• Where are the median data samples for comparative measures?

• In fact, have you even bothered to look for placebo results? Do you even care about control samples?

You're defending a position because the media told you to, not because it's the healthy or right thing to do, and not even because there's any hard, factual, or concrete data to back up your position.

You're even defending your position against me asking a basic health question that YOU should have been concerned about asking right from the start.

This is how it is in clown world, though. People are given toxins to inject into their system and then defend their efficacy rates based on unproven and untested claims. How absurd is that?

No, but occams razor says the simplest explantion is most likely the correct one, and I find the reality of increasing numbers to be the simplest explanation.

That's not how medical science is supposed to work.

We don't guesswork efficacy rates based on hypotheticals and then release the drugs into the public and try to figure it out later.

I can't even believe this has to be explained, but SAFETY COMES FIRST.

That means that no one in their right mind should put anything in their body before control studies are done, placebo studies are done, and longitudinal studies are done.

Occam's Razor tells us that if you don't have publicly available records for any of the aforementioned studies related to efficacy rates, then you have no argument about efficacy at all.

You can't argue on behalf of efficacy for an untested drug when there are no studies available, especially when the drugs contain graphene oxide and trypanosoma, which can kill you if they get into the venous system: https://archive.md/Pl7pH

This is part of the problem with today's culture, though. People are indoctrinated to believe disinformation over following through with the basic scientific method: ergo, asking questions first before believing lies.

I shouldn't have had to ask you the question I did, YOU should have asked that first before assuming untested drugs have any efficacy rates at all.

Let me ask you this: in the absent of any publicly available data, why do you believe the efficacy of these drugs at all? Based on what? How do you know the placebo effect isn't taking place? How do you natural immunity isn't simply doing its job? How do you other drugs aren't affecting any of the positive/negative rates being reported by the media? Where's the median data samples for comparative measures?

In fact, have you even bothered to look for placebo results? Do you even care about control samples?

You're defending a position because the media told you to, not because it's the healthy or right thing to do, and not even because there's any hard, factual, or concrete data to back up your position.

You're even defending your position against me asking a basic health question that YOU should have been concerned about asking right from the start.

This is how it is in clown world, though. People are given toxins to inject into their system and then defend their efficacy rates based on unproven and untested claims. How absurd is that?