The coronavirus vaccine wasn’t as dangerous as some say it was, but it certainly wasn’t as safe as others say it was. I did not trip over dead bodies from people who took the vaccine. But I also didn’t trip over healthy people who died from Covid.

 Agreed.  A big problem is the amount of humans blindly accepting the death rates of Covid, and also the amount blindly accepting the death rates of vaccines.  Billions could have died from Covid but did not, so if 1% were killed we all would have seen hundreds and hundreds around us die in a year.  We didn't.

 Billions are vaccinated, if 1% died we all would have seen hundreds and hundreds around us die in a year.  We didn't.  

 Of course it makes sense to complain a ton of homeless bodies didn't pile up from Covid, but that same logic doesn't apply to nursing homes, sports teams or schools - where most the vaccinated are.

What I have witnessed more  than anything is countless life changing injuries.    

 I would say I have witnessed more of this than any massive death rates.

 
Is there any evidence to show the Covid -19 " Vaccines " have prevented a single death ?

 This typically boils down to what you would accept as "evidence".  Technically I would say no if the argument is that one must prove the vaccinated human would have died - which is impossible and thus mitigates the ability to ever claim a vaccine saved a life.

 To me, "evidence" would be that the identical demographic of dying humans pre-vaccine are dying less.  In this example I can provide nursing homes and humans that correlate with the age and health levels of that demographic.  Since, in the US, the highest vaccinated and boosted demographic is the elderly.  This is a continually fulfilling supply as humans continue to age.

 I do not see the same percentage volume of elderly dying today as there was in 2020, specifically from respiratory related complications.  So I find it plausible that some of those humans that have aged more and become more-frail could have benefitted from the vaccination.  The percentage of death is lower, not higher and not the same.

Eegore wrote on Yesterday at 08:05:51:


I would accept irrefutable proof the the Covid 19 mRNA "vaccines " have prevented a single death as evidence .....       But as we all know there is no such proof, we have to accept and believe what we are told by experts who know better than us

I would accept irrefutable proof the the Covid 19 mRNA "vaccines " have prevented a single death as evidence ....

 Ok but what would that proof be?  For instance if one requires proof the human would not have died, then literally no medication ever could be proven to work - if that is the proof standard.

 What would be your standard of proof that a vaccine saved a life?



But as we all know there is no such proof, we have to accept and believe what we are told by experts who know better than us

 Or use simple math.  If 200 kids die with Disease A every year in a town and a vaccine is introduced and 3 kids die from Disease A, is it plausible that 197 kids developed natural immunity at the exact same time?  No need for laboratory imagery or experts, just simple logic.  

 Why aren't more elderly dying if they are the most vaccinated humans on the planet?  I truly expect the same level of respiratory illness would be present if the vaccine did nothing, and a higher rate of death if the vaccine was killing "400% more" per year.  It certainly could be damaging in the future, and be essentially useless now - but why aren't the elderly dying today like they were in 2020?

There are a lot of unanswered questions, but what I know from personal observations is that a lot of people have died and have / are being severely injured after being poisoned by the mRNA injections.


 Ok but what would your requirement for a vaccine to have saved a life be?  You claim you would accept proof, but what would it be?  

 Ok but what would your requirement be for a vaccine to have saved a life?

 I mean I can provide a standard even if I haven't seen it.  Like if I wanted proof a human won a motorcycle race and someone asked me what proof I need, I would say a video, some documentation and maybe some witnesses.  I would not have to say only once I see someone try to prove a motorcycle race was won, that then I will let you know if that's evidence or not.


 You see the issue here, anyone can say they want "proof" of anything really but if there is no measurable standard then they are basically saying they will not accept anything as proof.  So the burden is on the rest of the planet to bring information that for as far as they know, you would never accept no matter what.

 Like flat-Earth basically.  Nothing is "evidence" of a round planet to those guys.

 

There is no standard for proof that does not exist.  

 So you already decided proof is nonexistent.  The point of providing Your own standard is so you can assess if anything meets it.  You offer zero standard which guarantees you won't ever accept any evidence as proof.  No better way to always be right and everyone else be wrong than that really.


I would like compelling evidence but I am 99.9 % certain that I am never going to get it.
Proof of winning a motorcycle race that never took place is hard to accept

 So basically you won't accept any evidence because you already decided it does not exist.  

 It's clear that motorcycle races exist and that any human could before any race put forth a standard for deciding who would win that race, and what proof they would accept.  No reasonable individual requires a race to have already happened to decide how and what demonstrates a clear winner.

 This is like saying no one can predict the winner of a football game that never happened.  You don't have to "accept" the proof but you can indicate what you expect to see given a football game happens.