I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still.
If you won't trust this data what will you trust?
The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either.
The censorship is so bad you can't even Google anything anymore so where do you go?
> If you won't trust this data what will you trust?
Peer reviewed research, for starters. This database is like VAERS, which is likewise useless and filled with garbage reports. It's not vetted for accuracy in any way, it's a dumping ground for any random report that gets submitted.
> The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either.
Because the plural of anecdote is not data.
Happy to have my perspective changed.
Your comment is very disingenuous. You name-drop the WHO while making an outstanding and frankly unbelievable claim, but instead of citing the WHO you point to a conspiracy theory site.
Then you have the gall to repeat the old conspiracy loon trope of the press not being trustworthy when asked to provide a source to support your claims.
Well, no one asked you to quore the press. Why not quote the WHO, for example? Or is the WHO also not trustworthy to backup claims made regarding WHO's data?