patrick.net

I'd be surprised if it were really only a third.

Patrick says

I'd be surprised if it were really only a third.

yeah but he is already being attacked viciously, so you have to start with conservative guesstimate to be sure you will be right. Also if the majority of the vaxxed is old there are probably some who die of other causes, still 1/3rd would be fucking brutal, like a killing/maiming machine, considering almost all elderly are vaxxed and quite a few die each day.

I think my main issue with this vaccine, is that it doesn't appear to provide immunity from the disease.

If it did, I would be on the opposite side of this debate saying it's probably a good thing to get despite the risks.

That's if I though the disease was worth getting a vaccination for. I mean look at smallpox:



Now if sars-cov2-19 did that to a person, and there were a TRIVIAL number of "breakthrough cases", I'd be falling over myself to get the vaccine.

If a pathologist said it, he is only reporting deaths that are verifiable. Non-verifiable doesn't mean that the vaccine wasn't the cause, it just means that they can't verify it through testing and examination of the bodies. Otherwise, the association is circumstantial and wouldn't count. You can ramp up the figure considerably by allowing circumstantial association i.e. the person who was perfectly healthy croaks in temporal proximity to getting the vaccines far in excess that mere population diesease statistics would indicate.

The fact that a third is verifiable by a rigorous standard in and of itself is shocking. It would be shocking if it were twenty percent by autopsy and testing. Remember, ten percent of autopsies can't determine any specific cause of death, and many causes of death stated by pathologists are often guessing or for documentation convenience.