Different lots are more deadly.

 Agreed.   The question is, what percentage are impacted.  Unfortunately your math indicates 100% fatality rate until you quantify an alternative, like that some humans don't die, or have any known negative side-effects.  There has to be some estimate there.

 Ignoring how base-rate works doesn't help either.  It's an absolute mathematical fact, not an opinion, but somehow it doesn't apply to the vaccine.


"Funny how many young healthy people have fallen dead."

 Again, in relation to how many have not.  Also how many did before the vaccine in comparative health categories?  Are there more dead kids in your area?  If even a 1% increase happened it would be visibly noticeable just in the school yearbooks memorializing all those dead kids.  That's not "government information" it's just a logical outcome when kids die -  they memorialize them.  Where are these memorials?

 If a 1% increase happened in my area 4839 kids would have died in 2022.  This would have been acknowledged somewhere.

 Dodging the total vaccinated estimates only does one thing:  Prevents a comparison from being available to the discussion.

 If athletes were dying at a substantially higher rate, why aren't average people that use the athletics stats trackers for gambling being silent?  Madden NFL literally for the survival of their franchise track every NFL player, and not a word from them, or any of the 130 Million customers brought up that there are less active NFL players.  Why is that?

 How did every major sports team dodge the big vaccine death wave?


"Again.
If it KillYaDed every time, even democrats would figure it out"

 Agreed.  I am talking about your avoidance of quantifying the non-impacted humans because you "don't want to be played".  How do you expect to have a discussion at all with that type of contribution to what would be a required part of vaccine impact assessment?  Percentages require 2 or more numbers.

 

Really? That is lame,,it's a JOKE.


 Its a requirement.  To establish what percentage of humans die from a vaccine you need to compare that to the number that did not.

 At this point you have made it clear you will not acknowledge humans that took the vaccine and were unharmed.  Because you "don't want to be played".

 If some global warming activist only wanted to talk about oil spills and ignored completely the number of barrels per day used, calling it a JOKE to acknowledge any barrels of oil that never harmed the environment... what would you think about that person's interest in the truth?

 Why do you think a person would refuse to even discuss the barrels of oil that never spilled anywhere?

Would you??

 No.  But what the "proof" here, and everywhere else claims, is that graphene oxide is on the slide used for an electron microscope that looked at the vaccine.  Not in vaccine ingredients.

 Lets at least ask questions that are more accurate to what the "proof" is showing us:
 
 Would you eat an apple that is the same as an apple that was viewed under an electron microscope with graphene on the slide?  

 Just a regular apple.  Would a different regular apple used in electron microscope cyro-analysis somehow infect your apple with graphene oxide?

 Why is accuracy only important if you don't agree with the information?

 If we are going to go this route, pick any medication, separate the ingredients and put them on a list, include toxic chemicals used in the observation - but not INSIDE - of that medicine too, then go ask people if you could put those ingredients on their food and tell me how many say yes.

"What is proof?  Who decides what proof is validated?"

 In this thread zevenenergie did when he offered this document as "Proof", literally in the thread title.  He said this is "proof", but the document doesn't say what he was told it says.  He was mislead.


"I disagree with the GO on the slide."

 Why?  It is very clear what it is talking about.


"Regardless, if GO was on the slide that sample is tainted and has no merit."

 That's not how electron cryo-analysis works, but what do thousands of chemists and physicists know?  They can't possibly know how electron microscope cryo-analysis works any better than the guy on the internet that didn't even read the document.

 I talked this over with 4 different TEM Microscopists, two at the  Core Facility in the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and two tomographic data analysts from other facilities to corroborate.  These morons know nothing, they could only outline exactly what happens in cryo-analysis, and they seem to think graphene oxide slides are highly electron-transparent and stable in an electron beam making them ideal support films for the study of nanoparticles and macromolecules by transmission electron microscopy.

 The underlying carbon lattice maintains the order and lattice-spacings of graphene.  A structure that is clearly resolved in 80 kV aberration-corrected atomic resolution transmission electron microscopy image, making it more accurate.  

 Thousands agree worldwide, and they are all idiots right?

 Or maybe.... you don't know anything at all about what is being discussed in the document.  



"For starters, that is the topic of this thread.  Second, our government mandated a drug that they knew did not work, was not tested, was likely dangerous or was dangerous to certain segments of the population."

 And lying about the content of a amorphous slide as if the chemical is "IN" the vaccine does what?  

 Use lies to fight lies, real smart.  Wait it is smart, because people that won't look for themselves, and think they can accurately analyze things that they never even knew about a week ago, fall for the lies because those lies tell them what they want to hear.


 Admitting you know nothing about the topic, and that this "proof", read by someone else for you, does not say graphene oxide is "in" the vaccine is not equal to saying the vaccine is safe.  The vaccine can still be unsafe.  

 This just means that the document does not say what you were told it does.

How many times have you accused other forum members of not having an adult conversation.  Sure looks like it is becoming a pattern...........


 I think websites/bots/social media postings that use lies to manipulate people are doing a good job.  Or as I stated......... Smart.  Using lies to fight lies works, because they tell people what they want to hear.  

 Like graphene oxide being "IN" the vaccine.  The "proof" provided here does not prove that.

 Why fight that?  Why does graphene oxide absolutely have to be "IN" that vaccine?  Why argue about something presented here in black and white that somebody read for you?  Cant the vaccine be dangerous and also the "proof" in this thread be incorrect?


 Everyone else I have talked to about this exact same document just thanks me for breaking it down and providing resources to TEM cryo-analyzation methods so they can verify for themselves if they want to.  They are typically just happy that they aren't still using the lie posted here to support their position about a dangerous vaccine.  

Ok thanks for your effort

If all the
Died Suddenly
Young,athletic people isn't enough
Then enough doesn't exist.

 This has to be compared against those that never had any side-effects.  Or it's nothing more than the environmentalist that will only talk about oil spills.  Obviously oil is bad for the environment when you will refuse to talk about anything other than oil spills.  Oil has done damage, that's all we need to know right?



"Insurance companies are reporting Excess Deaths,,, and if the Suddenly Dead were unvaccinated, it would be Widely reported."

 Your own evidence you repeatedly reference but won't read disagrees with you.  


"Sweden did it right."

 As long as you ignore what happened during the two major medical shortages.  As long as I don't observe it, it's not part of Observed Reality.

"Guess if it is about guns, it doesn’t matter if a gun hater is lying.
We all are to tug our forelocks, bow and say,
           ‘Yes-Massa’ !"

 Ok Got it!