I’m a simple guy. If you’ve developed a 95% effective vaccine that’s a safe preventative for the 3rd leading cause of death in your society, then total deaths CANNOT increase. Any attempt to attribute that increase in death to something else is farcical because, sure, it’s possible, but it’s blatantly unreasonable. I’m an attorney, and I remind people that we don’t execute criminals based on proof; we execute them based on proof BEYOND a reasonable doubt. When you start vaccinating & total deaths increase, you have no reasonable doubt – the vaccines must end. Over-intellectualizing, over-thinking are extremely dangerous trends, especially for the intelligent. It’s very easy to persuade yourself that there’s some universe in which these vaccines work, or there are 73 genders, or that socialism just hasn’t been tried, but none of these beliefs are reasonable – they’re all nuts.
It’s really very simple: if you “cure” the third leading cause of death, then total deaths MUST decline. Anyone claiming there’s an exception to that rule must present extraordinary evidence, not speculation. Indeed, the exception would be obvious (like CA fell into the ocean & drowned millions). It’s not some BS about masks make people sad, which makes them sick…such subtle things are not plausible in light of the obvious: you’ve “cured” the 3rd leading cause of death but deaths increased.
Please stop taking the world “reasonable” out of your analysis/discussions. It’s great that you have theories about how the vaccines might not be to blame, but are those theories reasonable? That’s the threshold question we must demand our adversaries answer. (You reason from what you know to what you don’t, not from what you don’t know. We know deaths are increasing despite the cure; what do we infer from that? Granted, we don’t know why deaths are increasing, but so what? Uncertainty drives INACTION, not action. That is, you don’t vaccinate until you know it’s unsafe; you STOP vaccinating until you KNOW it’s safe.link
The full article is well-worth reading and can be found here: A Weltanschauung causal model of excess deaths. This article provides an excellent overview of the factors in a statistical model and how to consider them. Many readers may already appreciate the problems. I am glad I read the whole thing because it is valuable confirmation. But the comment above is more or less how I felt at the end. Next to all the science arguments is an argument about rhetoric. How do we best present our case so it is noticed but not so sensational or oversimplified it can be easily refuted with concomitant simplifications? In my view, we need to be brief and forceful in what we say. Some amount of error, oversimplification, and sensationalism must be tolerated if it communicates with more people and/or gets them to research the topic and discover supporting complexities themselves. We have the winning argument and should sound like it when addressing a wide audience. Lives are at stake. My own brother was deeply affected by Died Suddenly. That’s an example of the power of rhetoric. He has done more research and reading since viewing that film than anything else. ABN