Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Philip Andrews's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Marie-Louise Murville's avatar

Has anyone developed a reliable test to assess damage from the shots? Treatment for damage from the shots? It is my understanding that shot batches range from relatively harmless to deadly. Thank you for your important work!

Expand full comment
40 more comments...