>>15824882 (pb)

Stop reading headlines, it still says provisional in the body of the text.

Do you think they still can't make numbers up to suit the narrative?

Regardless, I provided you government numbers that contradict what you're putting forth. I'm demonstrating how bad the data is.

You have one doctor stating a percentage, I provided you with hard numbers from their data tables. Can't reconcile it, can you? Want to know why?

Because the data is shit.

States have dead people voting. If you actually think these are accurate numbers the NCHS and CDC are spouting out then by-all-means, gobble that shit up.

You are literally citing sources who come up with their own data.

What is a conflict of interest?

If these people came out and said "we were scared, we lied, we fudged the numbers, people said bye to grandma over zoom, and your loved ones died alone for no reason other than testing the limits of our power" then they'd be hanging from lamp posts.

They literally have no choice but to make the data fit the narrative.

If your life and your family's lives depended on a few more lies after you helped perpetrate one of the largest swindles in American history, I'm pretty sure you'd probably tell the lie too. After all, fudging a few numbers isn't that big of a deal especially when they're basically declaring fluvid dead. At that point, no one else is getting hurt, you're simply the cleanup crew. Nothing you do will change what has happened the last couple years.

You wanted someone to refute your claims, I did. Giving me another headline to try to justify your cognitive dissonance changes nothing.

The data is bad, that's your answer. Prove otherwise, don't just cite your science gods' opinions. Use math and their data. Prove me wrong.