[infotapeworm]

They used the term "New Normal" from day 1. Conspiracy theory is just a derogatory term to belittle opposition.

They gaslit us on so many topics throughout the years. They have went back on their statements on Ivermectin

They have went back on their statements on efficacy of the jabs - starting from 99% effective down to 10% - indicating they never had any tangible data to support their claims

They said that the jabs were about stopping transmission, then gaslit saying they never said that despite hundreds of hours of recording saying otherwise

Fauci admitted the 6 ft distancing had no science / data behind it.

Should I bring forth the damage caused by thrusting stage 2 ventilators on people?

What about the damage from vaccines with myocarditis and GBS?

You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but the official narratives are more riddled with inconsistencies than the "conspiracies" were

Now back to your original question of can we dispense with the data that is knowingly bad - yes.

Comorbidities were enough to do that, along with false attribution. Ofcourse these topics were heavily censored, creating even more discourse.

[AnimalMuppet]

> They have went back on their statements on efficacy of the jabs - starting from 99% effective down to 10% - indicating they never had any tangible data to support their claims

I can buy that they never had tangible data. But can you point me to a source for them claiming only 10% effective?

[infotapeworm]

Here is 12% from https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/pfizer-covid-vaccine-was-jus...

Although it is variant specific and from 5-11 age group

[baseballdork]

This borders on intellectual dishonesty on your part. They’re saying the vaccines, with their effectiveness around the original quoted numbers were ineffective against a new variant.

[infotapeworm]

There are hundreds of other articles detailing ineffectiveness of the vaccines and lowering efficacy. It is well known that the institutions also changed the narrative to say that vaccines were never about "transmission"

I've seen a 2 minute long video showing the declining percentages mainstream media claimed on the vaccine over the course of 3 months. Perhaps this one particular article was dishonest however.

[baseballdork]

Your original statement was that they lied about the effectiveness. The article you presented to back that up was about how the effectiveness was different for a different strain. So either you didn't read the article, didn't understand it, or were being dishonest.

[baseballdork]

None of this addresses anything I asked. This is absolutely conspiratorial drivel and griping.

Saying “comorbidities but censorship” only solidifies that you’re not willing to take an impartial look at anything.

[infotapeworm]

Are you denying the blatant/overt censorship? Many scientists were censored by institutions. This is well known and documented. The twitter files even made this apparent on congress floor, where silicon valley knows more about science than accredited doctors.

[baseballdork]

I'm saying that you haven't provided anything to back up your conspiracy theories. "I've seen videos", "the twitter files". None of this substantiates your original claims, and are pretty typical of conspiracy theorists.