:)
What booster are you on Tuchodi?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
Methodology: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(22)00035-6/fulltext
STUDY TIMEFRAME: “The 230-day observation period ran from March 11 2021 to Oct 26, 2021”
Old data. It excludes the catastrophic infection rates in the fully vaccinated after the boosters in December. Once again. Why link such an old study Tuchodi?
DEFINITION of ‘Death from COVID-19’ in this study was defined as death that resulted from clinically compatible illness in a probable COVID-19 case HAHA
THE DEATHS IN THIS SO CALLED STUDY WERE NOT EVEN PCR CONFIRMED, they were assumed! This is fraudulent
Fraudulent methodology. Why use outdated 2021 data and why count unconfirmed Covid deaths? Not very scientific would you say Tuchodi?
Hah!
"2 828 294 participants were assessed" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(22)00035-6/fulltext
The sun would burn out by the time you learned how to do it and then worked your way through the results of observations on almost 3 million cases.
You can claim data from five months ago is irrelevant. Go ahead.
Here's the complete quote: "Death from COVID-19 was defined as death that resulted from clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there was a clear alternative cause of death that could not be related to COVID-19"
Another unsupported opinion. VaC1 is completely ignorant of the notion of citing references.
No need to shout. You'll get spittle on you. Care to provide a source for this opinion?
^ FRAUDULENT DATA.
^ OUTDATED AND FRAUDULENT DATA
These are your opinions, and as you say: opinions are worthless.
Go get you some science.