All that smoke and mirrors and you won’t admit you exaggerated by at least a factor of 100? Not even the CDC claims that all asdverse events are in VAERS, particularly since a) the Harvard study proved it was 1% of the total BEFORE it became politically incorrect to report to VAERS. YOu’ll lie like that and scold me?
So true to form, you must resort to an utterly baseless charge of smoke and mirrors, which is actually on the part of dailyexpose.uk since its argument was not that of the estimated adverse vaccination events, but those which were officially reported, and which numbers it used as being alarming, yet 1,932 reported deaths do not even represent 1% of all the vaccinations.
THAT is the argument I reproved, and which was not with the motive of defending mandated vaccination.
Then in response to my warranted correction of a fallacious argument, you invoke estimated unreported adverse vaccination events - which again, I myself believe that are many more than what are reported, but which also pertains to other vaccinations - but which is NOT the argument dailyexpose.uk was making. Thus if anyone is employing something akin to smoke and mirrors it is thee.
Thus you can argue on the basis of estimated unreported adverse vaccination events, yet then you must face the issue of establishing that these were in fact due to the vaccination. One could counter that since over 7,000 Americans die every day of various causes, then if everyone was vaccinated then that could be blamed for it. Therefore the excess death statistics since vaccination began would be a better argument, if in fact it the correlation can be established as causation.
However, if we just uncritically take as fact whatever headline or story we read since it supports the case we want to make, then we are not going to actually present a proper argument. such is not even one perct