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 underst…
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.
It wasn't this either. Read my post and read the article. It was relative vs absolute, and the true number was 3.6 months over 82 years (assume rates held even).
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.
Absolutely.
It wasn't this either. Read my post and read the article. It was relative vs absolute, and the true number was 3.6 months over 82 years (assume rates held even).
Great point, thanks