Skerritt and Kelly are claiming the ABS actual deaths cannot be used as estimates of excess deaths. Skerritt then goes on to rely on actuarials who claim that if excess deaths were to occur they would have been in younger people. This is nonsensical because if the V is causing harm, older people will be the most susceptible which is exactly what the actual deaths are showing. Furthermore, what does that mean for adverse events where the average age of injury is 47!
Apparently the actuarials can diagnose patients or perform autopsies by looking at a spreadsheet!?!
The whole of the vaccine was to protect the old and the vulnerable yet it’s people in those cohorts who have experienced the highest death rates.
I then put it to Skerritt about his prior claim about the lipids in the vaccine being normal lipids in the steak or sausage you eat for breakfast. He responds by putting words in my mouth by saying that I claim lipids rely on ACE receptors to enter the cell claiming I had my biochemistry confused. That is not what I said – I actually said the opposite – Ionised lipids are designed to not rely on ACE receptors making them more infectious.
He then goes into to say there are four lipids used in the vaccine. Two are naturally occurring and then he goes on to claim two other lipids have been used in other products. This isn’t what Pfizer claim – they claim the lipid they design is completely new. Skerritt then claims they are safe because they were tested on cell lines i.e. in a petrie dish (not the same as testing in humans) and below the threshold for toxicological concern. It’s not a question of levels – it’s a question of ionisation. Every molecule is unique and should be tested very thoroughly on the human body, especially when they are ionised.
Another masterclass in avoiding the question.
