That's a well edited video.

---

This is why you cannot trust our institutions, this is just nuts…


Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours.

The paper, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal.

However, less than 24 hours later, the study was removed and a note appeared stating: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” While the study had not undergone any part of the peer-review process, the note implies it fell foul of “screening criteria”.

The original study abstract can be found in the Internet Archive. It reads (with my emphasis added):

Background: The rapid development and widespread deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction and carcinogenicity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.

Methods: We searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023. We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.

Findings: The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%) and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.

Interpretation: The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.
The full study does not appear to have been saved in the Internet Archive, but can be read here.

SSRN-id4496137Download
Without further detail from the Preprints with the Lancet staff who removed the paper it is hard to know what substance the claim that the conclusions are not supported by the methodology really has. A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so it is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line. Keep in mind that the CDC has not yet acknowledged a single death being caused by the Covid mRNA vaccines. Autopsy evidence demonstrating otherwise is clearly not what the U.S. public health establishment wants to hear.

Dr. Clare Craig, a pathologist and co-Chair of the HART pandemic advisory group, says that in her view the approach taken in the study is sound. She told the Daily Sceptic:

The VAERS system [of vaccine adverse event reporting] is designed to alert to potential harms without necessarily being the best way of measuring the extent of those harms.

Quantifying the impact of deaths can be done by looking at overall mortality rates in a country.

However, this is imperfect as a deficit of deaths would be expected after a period of excess deaths, making the accuracy of any baseline dubious.

An alternative approach of auditing such deaths through autopsy is sound.

There may be a bias [in the study] towards reporting the autopsies of deaths where there was evidence of causation and the likelihood of causation might be exaggerated by that bias. For example, 19 of the 325 deaths were due to vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) but these reports may be overrepresented because of the regulators’ willingness to acknowledge such deaths.

Nevertheless, it is important that attempts are made to quantify the risk of harm and censorship of these attempts, rather than open scientific critique, does nothing to help reassure people.
Dr. Harvey Risch, one of the study’s authors, told the Daily Sceptic he deems it “pure Government-directed censorship, even after the Missouri v. Biden injunction”.

“Meanwhile, my colleagues are studying what they call ‘Long Vax‘ which is vaccine-caused damage. But of course that is a rare, rare, rare outcome, except that they seem not to be having any problem finding such individuals to enroll in their study,” he added.

https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uplo...496137.pdf

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/06/lanc...-24-hours/

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

You can't trust the Lancet because the pre-print review showed a flawed study methodology but you believe the known quacks like McCullough and Craig. Sounds about right. Even Harvey Risch has been disavowed by his colleagues because of his very wrong stances as a HydroChloroQuack: https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/state...d0dee7b2b0

"As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions. But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments." 

Wanna really now just how corrupt McCullough is? Read this and you'll understand how his non-declared conflicts of interest are driving his nonsense and how many others are inbreeding the same garbage.

https://forbetterscience.com/2021/10/18/...9-because/

Link through to this insightful comment on PubPeer: https://pubpeer.com/publications/806F26D...DB04347F#3

In the paper, the authors mentioned: "The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. "


This is very surprising considering that at least one of the author is at the Board of Directors of the Pharmaceutical company of Topelia Therapeutics. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211004091021/https://topeliatherapeutics.com/team

Topelia Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company which seeks to commercialize treatments for COVID-19, including ivermectine and hydroxychloroquine.
The same author is also at the advisory board of Progenabiome, another pharmaceutical industry. source: https://progenabiome.com/our-team

This pharmaceutical company also seeks to commercialize treatments for COVID-19, including ivermectine and hydroxychloroquine.
Source: https://progenabiome.com/clinical-trials https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04482686?term=Progenabiome&cond=Covid19&draw=2


It seems the "conflict of interest" section is not accurate and may need to be updated. Can the authors clarify this point ?

The response from Petey was less than convincing:

"Many thanks for your interest in multidrug COVID-19 treatments in nursing home patients. Dr. McCullough is an uncompensated board member of Progenabiome without a financial stake in the outcome of the entity or the present manuscript. This does not represent a conflict of interest for disclosure.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH"

Frankly The Lancet should reject any paper submitted by him just on his name alone. He's a liar, a cheat, and a self-interested fraud who, along with his other anti-vaxxer pals, made millions of dollars duping people into believing in his snake oil.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Almost predicted this.

---

Almost predicted this.

Well of course you could, it's the truth. If Ronster's going to post quackery and corruption then I'm going to debunk it. Especially when a 60 mph meatball like Peter McCullough is tossed right over the plate.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Almost predicted this.

Well of course you could, it's the truth. If Ronster's going to post quackery and corruption then I'm going to debunk it. Especially when a 60 mph meatball like Peter McCullough is tossed right over the plate.

Concerning anything to do with COVID, if it doesn’t support the poison of the corrupt government agencies and murderous Big Pharma companies then you consider it “quackery”. I have submitted study after study, paper after paper , written by respected and qualified Doctors and you’ve summarily dismissed every single one. 

I like you dude, I really do, but you are to biased and too close to it to hold an objective opinion on it. You are not a Doctor, you are too invested in your position that you are incapable of seeing anything that doesn’t support your misguided and dangerous position…

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Well of course you could, it's the truth. If Ronster's going to post quackery and corruption then I'm going to debunk it. Especially when a 60 mph meatball like Peter McCullough is tossed right over the plate.

Concerning anything to do with COVID, if it doesn’t support the poison of the corrupt government agencies and murderous Big Pharma companies then you consider it “quackery”. I have submitted study after study, paper after paper , written by respected and qualified Doctors and you’ve summarily dismissed every single one. 

I like you dude, I really do, but you are to biased and too close to it to hold an objective opinion on it. You are not a Doctor, you are too invested in your position that you are incapable of seeing anything that doesn’t support your misguided and dangerous position…

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Well of course you could, it's the truth. If Ronster's going to post quackery and corruption then I'm going to debunk it. Especially when a 60 mph meatball like Peter McCullough is tossed right over the plate.

Concerning anything to do with COVID, if it doesn’t support the poison of the corrupt government agencies and murderous Big Pharma companies then you consider it “quackery”. I have submitted study after study, paper after paper , written by respected and qualified Doctors and you’ve summarily dismissed every single one. 

I like you dude, I really do, but you are to biased and too close to it to hold an objective opinion on it. You are not a Doctor, you are too invested in your position that you are incapable of seeing anything that doesn’t support your misguided and dangerous position…

So you don't find anything the least bit problematic with the issues in the post I made in response? You're just fine with McCullough and his band of merry writers being involved with just about every paper or tweet or article you've posted on here while also being on the Boards of the companies that manufacture their "alternatives", or being the actual Editors of the publications that endorse their papers? You honestly think that, for instance, the entire immunology department at Yale formally and publicly denouncing one their peers isn't cause for you to stop and really consider that you want this conspiracy theory to be true for your politics rather than for the good of public health? I mean, you tell me that I'm biased and too close and yet, instead of talking about me you should be telling me WHY you believe those people IN SPITE of the clear evidence that:

A. Their opinions were wrong. There were billions of shots given, no explosion in mortality. See here for a 44 week study of vaccinated people: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073592/

"Mortality rates in the 44 weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination did not show trends suggesting an increase in mortality related to COVID-19 vaccination, reinforcing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines."

We have many of these papers with like results.

B. There's obvious evidence of their corruption (see my post), 

C. Their papers keep getting holes punched in them by their peers (doctors, not me, saying their positions are bull [BLEEP]). Here's a summary of the criticisms of his blabbering on a podcast from just a few months ago along with the receipts (23 papers in the reference list to be exact) about why he's wrong. I know you won't read it, but someone else might, so here it is anyway:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/p...y-podcast/

You need to quit listening to Peter McCullough, Simone Gold, Pierre Kory, and their pals. They have you so twisted up that you don't realize that everything you post on here springs from their poisoned well. Meanwhile they're out there enjoying celebrity status, being invited to testify to government authorities, and laughing all the way to the bank.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Concerning anything to do with COVID, if it doesn’t support the poison of the corrupt government agencies and murderous Big Pharma companies then you consider it “quackery”. I have submitted study after study, paper after paper , written by respected and qualified Doctors and you’ve summarily dismissed every single one. 

I like you dude, I really do, but you are to biased and too close to it to hold an objective opinion on it. You are not a Doctor, you are too invested in your position that you are incapable of seeing anything that doesn’t support your misguided and dangerous position…

So you don't find anything the least bit problematic with the issues in the post I made in response? You're just fine with McCullough and his band of merry writers being involved with just about every paper or tweet or article you've posted on here while also being on the Boards of the companies that manufacture their "alternatives", or being the actual Editors of the publications that endorse their papers? You honestly think that, for instance, the entire immunology department at Yale formally and publicly denouncing one their peers isn't cause for you to stop and really consider that you want this conspiracy theory to be true for your politics rather than for the good of public health? I mean, you tell me that I'm biased and too close and yet, instead of talking about me you should be telling me WHY you believe those people IN SPITE of the clear evidence that:

A. Their opinions were wrong. There were billions of shots given, no explosion in mortality. See here for a 44 week study of vaccinated people: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073592/

"Mortality rates in the 44 weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination did not show trends suggesting an increase in mortality related to COVID-19 vaccination, reinforcing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines."

We have many of these papers with like results.

B. There's obvious evidence of their corruption (see my post), 

C. Their papers keep getting holes punched in them by their peers (doctors, not me, saying their positions are bull [BLEEP]). Here's a summary of the criticisms of his blabbering on a podcast from just a few months ago along with the receipts (23 papers in the reference list to be exact) about why he's wrong. I know you won't read it, but someone else might, so here it is anyway:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/p...y-podcast/

You need to quit listening to Peter McCullough, Simone Gold, Pierre Kory, and their pals. They have you so twisted up that you don't realize that everything you post on here springs from their poisoned well. Meanwhile they're out there enjoying celebrity status, being invited to testify to government authorities, and laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes, I see a bunch of people just like you that are too invested one way or another too the “safe and EFFECTIVE (what a joke) vaccines, that they will NEVER see anything that doesn’t support their deadly narratives. 

They don’t deserve to be believed because they LIED and people have died and are still dying from a government sanctioned POISON and they have zero credibility…

The vaccines didn’t stop anything, the vaccines didn’t save ONE life, the vaccines did NOTHING but make people rich and powerful, AND NO ONE is going too take that away from them.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

So you don't find anything the least bit problematic with the issues in the post I made in response? You're just fine with McCullough and his band of merry writers being involved with just about every paper or tweet or article you've posted on here while also being on the Boards of the companies that manufacture their "alternatives", or being the actual Editors of the publications that endorse their papers? You honestly think that, for instance, the entire immunology department at Yale formally and publicly denouncing one their peers isn't cause for you to stop and really consider that you want this conspiracy theory to be true for your politics rather than for the good of public health? I mean, you tell me that I'm biased and too close and yet, instead of talking about me you should be telling me WHY you believe those people IN SPITE of the clear evidence that:

A. Their opinions were wrong. There were billions of shots given, no explosion in mortality. See here for a 44 week study of vaccinated people: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073592/

"Mortality rates in the 44 weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination did not show trends suggesting an increase in mortality related to COVID-19 vaccination, reinforcing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines."

We have many of these papers with like results.

B. There's obvious evidence of their corruption (see my post), 

C. Their papers keep getting holes punched in them by their peers (doctors, not me, saying their positions are bull [BLEEP]). Here's a summary of the criticisms of his blabbering on a podcast from just a few months ago along with the receipts (23 papers in the reference list to be exact) about why he's wrong. I know you won't read it, but someone else might, so here it is anyway:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/p...y-podcast/

You need to quit listening to Peter McCullough, Simone Gold, Pierre Kory, and their pals. They have you so twisted up that you don't realize that everything you post on here springs from their poisoned well. Meanwhile they're out there enjoying celebrity status, being invited to testify to government authorities, and laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes, I see a bunch of people just like you that are too invested one way or another too the “safe and EFFECTIVE (what a joke) vaccines, that they will NEVER see anything that doesn’t support their deadly narratives. 

They don’t deserve to be believed because they LIED and people have died and are still dying from a government sanctioned POISON and they have zero credibility…

The vaccines didn’t stop anything, the vaccines didn’t save ONE life, the vaccines did NOTHING but make people rich and powerful, AND NO ONE is to take that away from them.

As I said, you don't want the truth because of your politics and you'll refuse anything that doesn't support the idiocy of everything you just posted. The phrases you used there only display your ignorance and paranoia, not evidence of a conspiracy.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, I see a bunch of people just like you that are too invested one way or another too the “safe and EFFECTIVE (what a joke) vaccines, that they will NEVER see anything that doesn’t support their deadly narratives. 

They don’t deserve to be believed because they LIED and people have died and are still dying from a government sanctioned POISON and they have zero credibility…

The vaccines didn’t stop anything, the vaccines didn’t save ONE life, the vaccines did NOTHING but make people rich and powerful, AND NO ONE is to take that away from them.

As I said, you don't want the truth because of your politics and you'll refuse anything that doesn't support the idiocy of everything you just posted. The phrases you used there only display your ignorance and paranoia, not evidence of a conspiracy.

No evidence of a conspiracy? Because you IGNORE the evidence and call it “quackery” again, because you my friend don’t want to be wrong. 

There’s tons of evidence, but you dismiss ALL of it, regardless of what distinguished Doctors say about it. Unfortunately, you as well have zero credibility on this subject matter, because unlike real scientists, you will not even consider you could be wrong…

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

As I said, you don't want the truth because of your politics and you'll refuse anything that doesn't support the idiocy of everything you just posted. The phrases you used there only display your ignorance and paranoia, not evidence of a conspiracy.

No evidence of a conspiracy? Because you IGNORE the evidence and call it “quackery” again, because you my friend don’t want to be wrong. 

There’s tons of evidence, but when you dismiss ALL of it, regardless of what distinguished Doctors say about it. Unfortunately, you as well have zero credibility on this subject matter, because unlike real scientists, you will not even consider you could be wrong…

It's quite clear from what I've presented in the last 24 hours that you are merely projecting. I've not ignored any of it, I've shown you why it's wrong. Then you say I can't prove that because I'm not a scientist or doctor or whatever, and I remind you that these aren't my opinions and it's not my credibility in question, I'm merely showing you what scientists and doctors say about your guys. Then you say that THEY are all in on it, and that's where conspiracy theories always end up, everyone but you is involved in a scheme to kill you.

You do nothing but attack my credibility, which is fine, I don't really care. I do nothing but attack your sources credibility, and then you attack my credibility some more, which is why I'm right and you're wrong in this matter.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No evidence of a conspiracy? Because you IGNORE the evidence and call it “quackery” again, because you my friend don’t want to be wrong. 

There’s tons of evidence, but when you dismiss ALL of it, regardless of what distinguished Doctors say about it. Unfortunately, you as well have zero credibility on this subject matter, because unlike real scientists, you will not even consider you could be wrong…

It's quite clear from what I've presented in the last 24 hours that you are merely projecting. I've not ignored any of it, I've shown you why it's wrong. Then you say I can't prove that because I'm not a scientist or doctor or whatever, and I remind you that these aren't my opinions and it's not my credibility in question, I'm merely showing you what scientists and doctors say about your guys. Then you say that THEY are all in on it, and that's where conspiracy theories always end up, everyone but you is involved in a scheme to kill you.

You do nothing but attack my credibility, which is fine, I don't really care. I do nothing but attack your sources credibility, and then you attack my credibility some more, which is why I'm right and you're wrong in this matter.

Well , when you present yourself as an expert because you work in the field, you open yourself too being criticized. Your sources say one thing , my sources say the opposite, but you want us all too just accept yours. 

Your sources at best have dubious relationships with the very people that forced that poison on the masses and they are defending their positions vigorously because they cannot afford to be proven culpable in the greatest scam ever perpetuated against humanity.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

It's quite clear from what I've presented in the last 24 hours that you are merely projecting. I've not ignored any of it, I've shown you why it's wrong. Then you say I can't prove that because I'm not a scientist or doctor or whatever, and I remind you that these aren't my opinions and it's not my credibility in question, I'm merely showing you what scientists and doctors say about your guys. Then you say that THEY are all in on it, and that's where conspiracy theories always end up, everyone but you is involved in a scheme to kill you.

You do nothing but attack my credibility, which is fine, I don't really care. I do nothing but attack your sources credibility, and then you attack my credibility some more, which is why I'm right and you're wrong in this matter.

Well , when you present yourself as an expert because you work in the field, you open yourself too being criticized. Your sources say one thing , my sources say the opposite, but you want us all too just accept yours. 

Your sources at best have dubious relationships with the very people that forced that poison on the masses and they are defending their positions vigorously because they cannot afford to be proven culpable in the greatest scam ever perpetuated against humanity.

Well, I've not done that anywhere in this years' long conversation, so I guess your criticism is unfounded and unfair. In fact I've repeatedly said that I am NOT a doctor or expert and only shared my work because of the insight I have in the operations rather than the clinical. I guess you can't even source this conversation with integrity. The rest of that post is nonsensical repetition of the same wrong things you've been saying for quite a while. The number of times you saying it has no bearing on it becoming true; it's still wrong.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well , when you present yourself as an expert because you work in the field, you open yourself too being criticized. Your sources say one thing , my sources say the opposite, but you want us all too just accept yours. 

Your sources at best have dubious relationships with the very people that forced that poison on the masses and they are defending their positions vigorously because they cannot afford to be proven culpable in the greatest scam ever perpetuated against humanity.

Well, I've not done that anywhere in this years' long conversation, so I guess your criticism is unfounded and unfair. In fact I've repeatedly said that I am NOT a doctor or expert and only shared my work because of the insight I have in the operations rather than the clinical. The rest of that post is nonsensical repetition of the same wrong things you've been saying for quite a while. The number of times you saying it has no bearing on it becoming true; it's still wrong.

That’s your opinion…. Cheers mate….


P.S , I currently work with Doctors and quietly, several have strong misgivings about the vaccines, very quietly, you know because they don’t want to be fired for not towing the murdererous narrative

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Well, I've not done that anywhere in this years' long conversation, so I guess your criticism is unfounded and unfair. In fact I've repeatedly said that I am NOT a doctor or expert and only shared my work because of the insight I have in the operations rather than the clinical. The rest of that post is nonsensical repetition of the same wrong things you've been saying for quite a while. The number of times you saying it has no bearing on it becoming true; it's still wrong.

That’s your opinion…. Cheers mate….


P.S , I currently work with Doctors and quietly, several have strong misgivings about the vaccines, very quietly, you know because they don’t want to be fired for not towing the murdererous narrative

That's fine, the important thing to remember is that every time you post misinformation I'll be here to show you the truth. I know you won't accept it, but others who read will be able to make a decision based on the discussion.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

And your truth comes from people who don't profit from that information, so it's totally trustworthy. Right?

---

And your truth comes from people who don't profit from that information, so it's totally trustworthy. Right?

Plus 1

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

And your truth comes from people who don't profit from that information, so it's totally trustworthy. Right?

 Some do, yes that's true. That's why they don't sit on their own review boards or edit their own journals and publications. You of all people should be in agreement with me on this as much as you rail on about corruption. But you also have that reflexive need to oppose whatever I say on here no matter how much you would agree if you had read it somewhere else first.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Maybe it's reflexive. I can't say that. I will admit it's speculative at the very least. I know from the data that we have argued previously, you were wrong on multiple counts. I don't follow this issue as closely as I used to, but I don't think your sources have gotten much better. They are still largely driven by the same corporate greed that ushered us into this mess in the first place, and I believe you never reconciled your cognitive dissonance in a way that gives you any credibility on this subject.

I was just at a dinner with my wife last week, speaking to one of the top researcher doctors at UF who lamented the entire quality of the "research" that shaped covid policy. He clearly didn't want to have an in-depth conversation about it (since the year prior we had a conversation about it and he was quick to dismiss me in a manner similar as yourself). Personally, I think he also didn't want to acknowledge that an "uneducated" industry outsider might have had a better grasp on the subject than he did, but the reason is unimportant. Ultimately, he acknowledged that the data that drove the policy was very bad, and it's caused him a crisis of conscience moving forward. It honestly made me sad for the dude, because his world view was clearly shattered.

You have your heels dug in, so I inherently mistrust you on this subject. That's your personality type, though. I am not up to date on the current arguments, because I stopped caring once the establishment stopped pushing the vaccine.

---