>>14014577if the stats don't fit the facts, and have obvious digital artifacts from being edited if not fabricated wholesale in MSPaint, I am not likely to believe them
do you honestly expect people to believe everything they read because it looks vaguely scientific?
Oh who am I kidding you're a /pol/tard, of course you do, because that's what you do.
>>14014588>I'm still seeing it flicker up after vaccinationoh no you little rat, your original "accurate" graphs don't show a "flicker", they show a SPIKE after vaccinations. Vaccinations don't just not work, so say those graphs, vaccines actively BAD
except here's an actual accurate graph that looks nothing like the "accurate graphs" you posted
huh
curious
why is this? could it be that those graphs are very clearly fake to anyone with eyeballs?
>those graphs actually were accurateum akshually, yeah, you can't just dismiss my graphs about...somewhere... just because they were made in MSPaint and look nothing like real graphs in any way, mmmk?
where are these graphs from? Pretty basic information. Still haven't answered it.
>the one you posted STILL supports the fact vaccines don't workno, it doesn't. There being no change in downward progression cannot possibly suggest that vaccines do not work, at best it can suggest that there is not enough data to measure vaccine effectiveness
but of course you will read whatever agenda you need to into a graph, regardless of factuality.
>It's LITERALLY a case of "i like the graph better because it's zoomed out and has pretty coloursit's literally a case of "your graph is bad and you should feel bad, it has none of even the basic hallmarks of rigorous scientific study"
which of course you label as pretty colors
also it's not zoomed out, it's zoomed in, you complete ignoramus
Again, why are you here? Do you think you're convincing anyone with this? Even a casual observer can tell you have no argument or facts on your side.
