Thanks Albert - I only kinda understand about 1/4 to 1/2 of everything you write.....(!)
But I noticed from the "new" death chart that no lot #s were given for the J&J and that they were all jabbed about 7 months before they died. So even though it's not a lot of people to go by, it's confirming my guess that maybe the J&Jers that survived their first year, now two years, might be doing relatively ok. Compared to the mRNA crowd, where the stuff seems to catch them a year to two later though I know plenty that had emergency cancers and clots right away, and two that died within 14 days.
Such a great point and I concur, we should all consider dropping whatever it is that keeps people who presumably have the same goal (scientific accuracy, truth) ... from collaborating.
Sometimes almost like there are bad batches of dopamine neurotransmitters going around, prayerfully hoping I never become addicted to that high from hits, I avoid looking at my stats.
Thanks Albert - I only kinda understand about 1/4 to 1/2 of everything you write.....(!)
But I noticed from the "new" death chart that no lot #s were given for the J&J and that they were all jabbed about 7 months before they died. So even though it's not a lot of people to go by, it's confirming my guess that maybe the J&Jers that survived their first year, now two years, might be doing relatively ok. Compared to the mRNA crowd, where the stuff seems to catch them a year to two later though I know plenty that had emergency cancers and clots right away, and two that died within 14 days.
Do you think there's anything to this?
Such a great point and I concur, we should all consider dropping whatever it is that keeps people who presumably have the same goal (scientific accuracy, truth) ... from collaborating.
Sometimes almost like there are bad batches of dopamine neurotransmitters going around, prayerfully hoping I never become addicted to that high from hits, I avoid looking at my stats.
Always love the helpful annotations