Tyranny Through Weaponized Bureaucracy | Dr. Scott Jensen | EP 349

Of Course the people who believe the lies want him destroyed.
How many of them are dead now? How many of the ones who didn't get seriously injured by the jabs here figured it out? You think the jab is a good idea? You can have mine, ten times..

The people involved in life insurance are calling bullshit.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/covid-vaccines-raise-mortality-rate-by-26-a...

 This information is obviously lies since it contains "partially vaccinated" in table 2 which we established here is not possible because nobody is counted as partially vaccinated.

 Sounds to me like it is ok to use partially vaccinated humans if the evidence says what you like, but then refuse to observe those partially vaccinated humans if the information says something you do not like.  Why not use all data instead of cherry-picked data?

 The above statement is not in any capacity saying the vaccine is "safe" or "effective" or any known combination of the words "safe" or "effective" to include any synonymous English words or words of any other language that would be correlated to the use of the words "safe" or "effective"

 A human can point out blatantly hypocritical data usage and also think a vaccine is not "safe" or "effective".


 Also this data is a lie.  They used information from this:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/...

 But for people that actually read it we can see that the information  DOES NOT state whether or not they died from vaccination.  This also ignores, as usual base rate.  Also he used whole percentage values not percentage-in-category values.  It assumes every human that died, and was vaccinated died FROM the vaccine.  Why is it ok to do that for the vaccine but not ok to do that for the disease?

 If more humans are vaccinated, more vaccinated humans will end up in a hospital for any reason.  If 85% of the population wears green shirts, more green shirt wearing humans will die than people who are not wearing green shirts.  Does this mean green shirts are deadly?

 However if we refuse to Observe the data this article got it's information from, refuse to Observe the mathematical absolute of Base Rate, and refuse to Observe that the data DOES NOT say if they were vaccinated, then none of those things are reality.

 Anyone here Observe 600000 mortality rate increase in 2022?

When you run outta gas for your gaslite,  I'm going to laugh.

 I posted files with hundreds of records of partially vaccinated.  You said they "weren't counted".  Now its ok to say they are counted?  When did this change?


 What about the "a likely possibility" of the dead being vaccinated?  Would you accept Covid deaths counted as absolute if they were "A likely possibility" of dying from Covid?

 Is there a reason we should not Observe that the documentation provided here does not verify vaccination, does not use percentage-in-category, and ignores all other mortality factors?
 

 Observing and actually reading the data provided here does not mean the vaccine is "safe" or "effective" or any synonymous known word in any known language.  It means a human can acknowledge the information is misleading and inaccurate, and vaccines can be harmful.

 Have you Observed anything indicating 600000 additional deaths in 2022?  Where are all the families of these dead humans, why are they silent?

Because the numbers are wrong everything is fine. The Suddenly Dead are actually very healthy.

 Why would you expect anyone to ignore, as you put it: "wrong" numbers?  What is the value in that specifically?  Would you accept "wrong" numbers to show how many died FROM Covid?

  Nobody said dead humans are alive, you made that up.  It's the amount that's disputed, not the outcome.  A vaccine can be unsafe without using all these sensationalized unrealistic numbers.

 Have you Observed anything indicating 600000 additional deaths in 2022?  That's an additional 1,643 PER-DAY.

So,what Are the numbers? Who's NOT lying?

 I think the short answer is you are primarily "source-based" in your acceptance of information since you don't read the references, or discuss them with people that do.  You already decided vaccines are deadly so anything that says they are deadly, even if they are astronomically incorrect mathematically, you consider to be truth, or at a minimum truthful to a degree.  The math doesn't seem to matter as long as the headline is saying vaccines are deadly.

 Anything that says vaccines are not that deadly you already decided is a lie.  So in this case numbers really don't seem to matter, it's just what the article headline is saying about them.  

 The confusing part for me is how the same documents can be in this super-position of being a lie, and a truth at the same time.  If The Gateway Pundit says it is true, then you say it's true, but if the CDC just posts it in an archive, you consider it a lie.  Why is that?

 The only thing I can figure out is you are only interested in the assessment outcome of the documents and not the contents of the document itself.  I choose the opposite route and want to know what the documentation actually says, I don't really have an emotional investment in the outcome, I just want to know what it says.


"I'm thinking insurance companies have a lot of data"

 I agree.  I notice none of their data in the references you provided indicate vaccines as a primary contributor.  


"I think the Point Is
The YOU MUST accept the jabs faction needs to admit they were wrong."

 I agree, but should "the jabs are deadly" faction also admit they are wrong when they claim an additional 1,643 PER-DAY died in 2022?  Or do we ignore that part and just focus on the parts that they got right?

 I understand that lying an injuring people is more impactful than advising and having incorrect numbers.  However almost all of the sources here are just lies, not small numerical mistakes.  Not a few times, almost all of them are drastically inaccurate numerically, or just duplicitous made-up information.

 There's no way all these numbers are just small mistakes, there should be millions of dead kids, soldiers, etc. by now if only a small percent of what is claimed is true.

 I don't know why you get upset with me for showing you that a source is lying to you.  I'd be asking why they chose to present their data that way instead of arguing with the guy that showed you the inaccuracies.  But then again it seems that you interpret me saying I don't think 2000 soldiers are disabled per-day also means vaccines are safe and effective the government never lies and to trust the CDC.  All I am saying is the doctor you keep referencing is lying to you about those numbers.  She isn't advising against vaccines, she is intentionally misrepresenting the data hoping you don't look it up yourself.  And it works.


 Why are numbers from The Gateway Pundit truthful and to be used as evidence but the exact same document retrieved from the CDC archive is "lies"?  I assume since you won't talk about that is because the source saying what you think is true is more important than the information provided in that document.  

 This method of accepting information will never result in you finding out what might actually be real.

Before a word was produced to tell me Don't Take the Jab, I had decided.

 We know this.  So now all you have to do is find any information that proves you were right, this is the definition of confirmation bias.


The people who are fully jabbed are More likely to die.
The insurance companies say so.

 Just to be clear, did you look at any of that insurance information?  Where do the insurance companies, not guys cherry picking charts, but the actual insurance data say this?  Do the insurance companies actually say this?  Are insurance "companies" saying an additional 1,643 PER-DAY died in the US?

 Or does a guy who picked one chart say this? (Incidentally that chart is all government data by the way)


 Also, this ignores the mathematical absolute of base rate.  Why are you ok with that?