I'm sure once I read it for you that you will just thank me for the clarifications and not argue with me about something you refuse to Observe for yourself right?  

 Just like how a guy that never even looked at a Suzuki manual knows more about it than the people that work on bikes for a living and can outline all the repair manual inaccuracies.

 Incidentally if I told you we already went through this with Korean interpreters last month, and could give you exact batch numbers, and ages impacted by percentage,  would you just say Ok cool, I didn't know that since I didn't look at it.

 Or would you do something like claim the information I am using is wrong, even though its Your information like you usually do?

Well, I Watched you be wrong about Covid,, as you so authoritatively spouted numbers,, so,, tell ya what,, don't worry about fixing me.

 I posted tons of names on here of adults and many living humans you claimed were dead kids.  You just re-stated the insurance nonsense that an additional 1,643 people pre-day were dying from vaccines.  You repeatedly posted stats that over 8 Million kids died in 2021.  

 I have repeatedly said the CDC counts were wrong and that's why CO needed to change the count method.  You won't Observe this.  A lot of it was wrong in general, I even thought kids would have some severe side-effects and elevated mortality rates.

 But I can't sit here today with the lack of kid funerals and keep trying to say they are dying.  If I did I would be using lefty gun-control logic of ignoring the obvious proven facts and sticking to my decision no matter what.

 Instead I will literally use information You provided and still see the elevated mortality rates in the age groups where humans are actually dying.  

 You historically will tell me I am wrong, and refuse to Observe I used information You provided to get those numbers.

False information is put out BY the proponents of Jabs-Kill-Kids!!,inflating the damage, and done so that it can be refuted,in order to diminish the argument. It's not new.

 1,643 Additional PER-DAY died in the US from jabs, you still stand behind that?  8 Million kids died in 2021, you stand behind that or is that "inflating the damage"?


As if the people I WATCHED Die on live TV,, didn't..

 I'm sure you did.  What percentage out of the 26.8 Million vaccinated kids playing sports would you say your Observation is?  Or I could put it this way:
Ohh! Wouldn't finding one or two exceptions nullify what is obvious?

 See... same strategy, a lefty would have pointed out the few murders he saw on TV in TX, or that shooting in Wal-Mart.
 


Again, it's not even almost in the same league as Decades of data proving gun control is a proven failure.
So, what are you trying to accomplish?

 I am saying the same strategies lefties use to avoid Observing "every verifiable metric" are the same ones You, and for that matter anyone that is claiming kids are dying at an elevated rate from the vaccine.  

 There is Decades of data of child mortality rates.  If the vaccine was killing kids there would have been a negative change.  There is Decades of data on crime statistics.  If gun control worked there would have been a positive change.  Refusing to Observe either one of those outcomes is the same thing: ignoring the obvious.

Totally dissimilar things. Indisputable evidence against gun control
Versus debatable results from the Jabs.

 The lack of dead kids is not debatable.  No Observable outcomes exist, not one.  If there were you would be using them.  There's a reason you, or anyone else can't provide hardly any obituaries for the millions of vaccinated kids in TX alone.  Those kids are alive.  The percentage dying never went up.

 The strategies to deny these things are the same.  

 You ask why lefties won't admit gun control measures aren't working.  Why won't you admit there aren't more dead kids?  The cycle of strategy to justify not answering this will be very similar.  We just went through it.

 The real question is why must the Jab be killing kids?  Why not adult males in their 40's and 50's like the data You provided, that I read for you, actually says?

 I ask a similar question to gun-control advocates that insist gun bans will work.  Why can't gun bans be ineffective and crime still be reduced by other means?

They are to completely different things.

 I agreed to that multiple times.  Similar Strategies.  I am talking about strategies.  The only defense to avoid admitting there aren't more dead kids is to say I am comparing gun-control to Covid.  I am comparing denial strategies to Covid, Climate Alarmism, and Gun-Control.  Those Strategies are similar.  Comparing propaganda strategies in WW2 to Social Media strategies is not equal to saying WW2 and Social Media are the same thing.  They just use similar strategies.



The COVID shot, is New.
It is surrounded buy numinous, THEORIES, which have NOT been proven, one way or the other.

 So when someone says its "Proven" and they have "all the proof we need", and that Observed Reality "proves" kids are dying (not potentially, but actively are) in "large" numbers and gives you a list of names of, and I quote here again... "D.E.A.D" youth athletes where hundreds and hundreds are adults and alive, is that THEORIES?  No.  They are proclaiming facts and supporting it with lies.

  Have we ever seen gun-control advocates proclaim facts using lies?  Similar strategies there.



It is made by companies which have a HUGE Monetary stake in it's making.

 Agreed.  And when someone states repeatedly for years "Insurance Companies" say "vaccinated" have larger payouts, at a rate of 1,643 per-day meaning hundreds of thousands of deaths nobody had funerals for, grave plots, mourning families, missing work etc.  what does HUGE monetary stakes have to do with that?

 Do gun-control advocates use blatant lies and defend it by saying the NRA/Politicians/Gun Companies have HUGE monetary stakes in the sales of guns and accessories?  Sounds like similar strategies.



You were FORCED to take a experimental 'JAB'.

 I was not.  Were you FORCED?

 Do gun-control advocates say when a gunman kills people in a grocery store or a school many families are FORCED to deal with the death of their loved ones?  Sounds like a similar strategy to me.

 I'm not defending lefty logic for gun control, I am saying BOTH Jabs-Kill-Kids (which the claims are actually saying Jabs already killed a ton of kids) AND lefty gun control are wrong.

 The only reason there is this repeated and incorrect hangup on Covid vs Gun Control is a weak attempt to continue to avoid admitting that there is no evidence of any kind anywhere that child deaths went up AFTER vaccinations.

 Claiming over and over there's "Proof" of something is not THEORY.  Nice "deflection".



When a person,
decided to not buy a Gun,
   they were,
   NOT PUNISHED !!!!!!!!!

 I wasn't punished for not being vaccinated, were you?  This is a more accurate assessment than declaring humans were FORCED for sure.  

 So am I deflecting or did you choose a less accurate term to describe poor and inappropriate vaccine implementation?  Claiming deflection is easier because it requires zero self-assessment.  

 I could easily see lefties saying that their families were PUNISHED when they went to school, or a nightclub.  Bring up a few incidents they saw on TV, provide internet articles that they refuse to read, then act like there's tons of people getting killed around them every day in Wal-Mart.  Only lefties would use that strategy though.
 

Your source (High Wire) is run by an anti-vaxxer with no medical degrees and clicking on references just takes you to another High Wire article
You're reading what you want to hear

 Doesn't matter what the source is as long as it's correct.  Unless it's a government source.  Unless that government source says what I think is true, then it's ok.  Also I can use the exact same source as everyone else, that I called "Lies", because it's true if I use it.

 Also none of it has to exist in reality as long as the headline says what I already believe is true.  Also I don't actually look at anything I provide as reference.  But if you look at it and tell me what's in it, I will argue as if I know what it says.  

 So the source doesn't matter.  Typically because I will know absolutely nothing about what is in it, but I will know its true if I use it, and lies if you do.