Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
I have been provocative on numerous occasions on this site, but I am not being on this thread.

I am provocative when dealing with people who have given me cause to do so. That is not the position with you, Frog.

Yes, I have zero respect for Twitter. It is the wild west of the internet. People can post opinion (or untruths) as fact and make claims about their ability and qualifications with no checks or balances in place. And the site algorithms make sure that viewers see opinions that they think they will like, creating a personalised echo chamber.

Of course people should reach their own views. I would not and do not begrudge you (or anyone else) that. The only thing that I ask is that you look beyond the Twitter algorithms. Why did Twitter show you an image of someone being taken ill on a sports field with zero evidence of that being vaccine related? Is the tragedy of someone being taken ill something that should be exploited to to advance a particular viewpoint on vaccines?
I took the time to look at lancet like you suggested. I found bias in conflict of interests and the funding on two major papers.
You didn’t respond. I have also looked at what raging has suggested. It shows a paper that supports his argument. I said to him that I’d like to have more time. The timeline itself after the injection in particular a concern. I will look again.

I agree that there is stuff on Twitter that should be dismissed and that’s why cross referencing information with the internet is helpful. Although having done it so many times I see the same algorithm being used to bury the information as deep as they can.

Exploiting someone’s illness or death is not what I’m doing. I’m questioning the validity of the all cause mortality rate reports. Which show a clear raise whenever the mNRA vaccine has been rolled out.

I’m sorry if what I’m doing is upsetting you in anyway but I will continue to do it. You don’t have to read it!