Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Philip Andrews's avatar

This a reasonable article - but I think the author has made one easy to make but classic mistake in their calculations/interpretation of Dr McCullough's 37% reduction in lifespan figure. I am certain (whether his 37% figure is correct or not) that he meant thirty seven percent of remaining lifespan. That's critically important to understand. It can't be anything other than that , because if you had a 70 year old person who had three vaccines , they couldn't , then suddenly lose thirty seven percent of their lifespan , because they would already be dead at the age of 50 (80 -37% = 50)! It's a basic mistake but important to clarify as it makes the author appear foolish when I'm sure they're normal. However if you were 60 say and lost 37% - that would be 7.5 years lost - far more likely.

Expand full comment
dude 01's avatar

A couple of years ago, I was logging deaths of family, friends and associates, who died or were injured anywhere from three days to three years after having received the jab. I stopped counting at 13. Now I wish I hadn’t stopped counting, having read about the coworker in this article who went to 207 funerals. This is pure madness. The fact that some people cannot see it is ridiculous.

Expand full comment
40 more comments...

No posts