QAnon-ster Robert David Steele was good enough to post the more-or-less full of empty platitudes speech at that Wendy Bell gave at this week's Arise USA/QAnon/Anti-Vaxx rally in Beaver.
Good. It gives us all an opportunity to see what Wendy's been spewing in public these days.
First, a personal story. At 3:40, Wendy says:
Personal story. My second oldest son Jack went yesterday and got the jab. You know? He's nineteen. He's a grown man. He has to make decisions. He has to be free to choose what is right for him.
And it's required from a super liberal school.
Now I'm confused. Did Jack choose to get the vaccine or did he have to get the vaccine because it's required by the "super liberal school" he's attending?
And, BTW, which "super liberal school" is the second son of Wendy Bell attending?
According to Wendy herself (and I would not mention this had Wendy not mentioned it), writing
in a surprisingly sad column from last August, he's attending Boston College - a private Jesuit University where the
tuition is upwards of $56,000/yr.
And if forcing her son to be vaccinated with something so dangerous bothered her that much, why shell out
the 56 large to BC this year?
At 5:00, Wendy says:
How many of you watch my show or listen to it? Right on! Right on! We spend so much time researching things, finding things, giving you the sources so that you can double check me. And I say everyday, "Hey if you find that I am wrong, let me know. I'll be the first to admit it. I'll make it right."
Ok, Wendy. Challenge accepted.
Here we go. I'm letting you know that every time you cite the VAERS data to prove how dangerous the vaccine is,
How do I know this?
As I've written many many times before, the CDC itself has a disclaimer that reads (in part):
VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.
So whenever you use those numbers to "prove" that something nefarious is afoot, you're wrong, see?
And when have I corrected you on your use of the VAERS data? Here's a few
postings from just the past two months:
There you go, Wendy. 6 times you were absolutely positively wrong about something.
When will you (as you promised) admit it?