'a friend of a friend told my friend who told me'
sounds legit (sarcasm)
So you DO see how legitimacy for Covid is lacking!
Since you are so wise, perhaps you could find a Covid report in that list of 38,000, and then show the part of the wording... the step-by-step isolation process, like from a scientific researcher's in-the-lab notebook, where he/she records the steps as they are being done. And you might even throw in the part where it made the injected test subjects sick. You know, the little important details.
You don't have to quote the whole notebook area. Just quote a little of it, and give clear directions as to how to find it.
And don't get me wrong. I understand that it might be there. If it looks good enough, I'll forward it on to Dr. Andrew Kaufman so he can show us what is wrong with using the report as proof.
its 2020. doctors do not use 'notebooks' its all computerised.
the reports show the methods.
i know you are just trying to say you want to ignoring reading the processes because its not wrote in the hand written common worded language you want.
but this is where you have to up your game and learn science.
i already know if someone contacted one of the doctors/labs referenced in the reports to send you any 'notes' in hand written form. you will then declare its not good enough because its not a science format.
and thus again(you already played this game) will flip back to wanting the official reports.
please read your own post history you already played this flip flop game of ignorance.
the reports explain the equipment/tools/agents/chemicals/even the volume of chemicals. the number of times its cycled. how long the time it takes to cycle.
also they have the reports of the hamsters, mice, monkeys and other animals they test the sample on
and all the details of the tests taken from the animals.
its not that the reports lack that info. its that you lack the ability/desire to want to learn.
Nice, you literally said "Okay, Boomer" in your statement, but make it more understandable for them.
I totally agree with all of this. He just always goes in a loop, contradicting his past statement for his present once, then go back to that old one. He is a conspiracy theorist to begin with, so I am not shocked at all.
That's a frank1 standard. He uses so little speech explaining what he is talking about, that he might be talking about the paint inside the Taj Mahal for all we know.