I don’t really disagree with anything you said until the end…. “Lying” requires knowing what you’re saying is untrue.  IF they didn’t know all of the specifics of how the vaccine would work and whether/when you’d need boosters to keep up with a rapidly mutating virus, that’s not lying, it’s being mistaken.  In my experience, the scientists were pretty careful about using appropriate language… “Is likely to” or “will probably” or “may result in.”  Politicians and pundits weren’t so careful, and that’s what led to a lot of this back and forth and actual, real, misinformation taking root in people’s minds.  Did some people lie?  Probably, and that’s wrong, regardless of the motivation.  Is the vaccine part of some nefarious plot to kill off a significant portion of the world population (which seems to be the original point of this thread, as evidenced by the rumble movie linked above)?  I haven’t seen any real evidence of that.

I may not know if what i stated is true or false, however I do know I'm making a claim that I can't support with any facts. 

You don't have to knowingly make false claims to be lying.  You can make claims YOU HAVE NO IDEA as to their truthfulness, but you're presenting them as if they are true nonetheless.

Making claims you can't prove can, and do, lead to very serious consequences. 

"Take this.  It'll cure your cancer."
"What is it?"
"It's my secret formula.  Take this, and you don't need to pay for chemo."

Do I know it WON'T cure cancer?  How?  Probably never been a study -- kinda like the COVID vaccine when it was rolled out.

Seatbelt point taken; a better way for me to have communicated the point would have been to say that if you compared the percentage of people fatally injured in traffic accidents who were wearing seatbelts in 1970 to the percentage of people fatally injured in traffic accidents who were wearing seatbelts today, today’s percentage would likely be higher.  But I don’t have those numbers, so can’t say for sure.

About the vaccine, did you watch the videos you posted?  The one from ABC7 didn’t say anything about the vaccinated population accounting for a growing proportion of COVID deaths; that’s just in the headline.  In the second video, the guy even makes the same point I’m making, and goes on to say “but they said it would be perfect, and it wasn’t perfect!” And shows some clips of Dr. Fauci saying something that I believe has borne out to be true… the vaccine has been extremely effective at preventing serious disease and death, if you kept up with boosters for the emerging variants.  I don’t recall anyone ever saying it would be 100% effective in preventing illness, transmission, or death.

Was there some political motivation?  Sure.  Was it “purely” political?  I don’t believe so; there was a new, dangerous disease circulating, and I believe a lot of public spirited folks were doing the best they could to get people to take steps to reduce the risk.  Some of them probably stretched the truth, which is inexcusable, but I believe the vast majority were doing the best they could with incomplete data and a politically divided population.  Was it a government-wide conspiracy to get nano-bots into your bloodstream so the 5G towers could transmit Bill Gates’s instructions?  No.

TDS caused the Science to take a back seat to politics.  Biden himself took his first COVID vaccine in December 2020, and then later claimed the vaccine wasn't available until after he became president -- trying to take credit when the facts prove he's lying.

So, yes -- politics.  I remember many in the media and entertainment saying they refused to subject their health to a vaccine that was "rushed to market" under President Trump.  Three months later, they were all on the "Get the Shot" bandwagon under Biden -- same vaccine, different frontman.

Then it became another game of "basket of deplorables," only this time with "vaccine deniers".  Anyone who questioned the safety of the vaccine was labeled a Right-wing nut job who's trying to kill other people.  Of course, they didn't stop to realize that if the vaccine worked as advertised, there was no need to fear unvaccinated people.   

Then came the booster goat rope.  You need one in 6 months, maybe another in a year.  Then it was 2 in six months.  Then it was a booster every 3-6 months in perpetuity, because it doesn't create the same level of protection against infections.  It MAY (not will) help prevent COVID deaths in those most vulnerable (elderly, obese, chronically ill), but again, they ignored factors like natural immunity and the degree of harm the vaccine might be doing to otherwise healthy people.

I haven't had the vaccine or any boosters.  My younger daughter did, and she's had some pretty lousy side effects,  Three months after the vaccine, she contracted the virus and was out of commission for 2-3 weeks ... too sick to function.  She's 33 and a healthy weight.  No underlying medical issues.  She doesn't see how the vaccine helped her at all.

Anyway, the point is, the government lied to the nation -- and the world -- about the vaccine's efficacy, safety and how often boosters are needed.  Did they lie because they just didn't know (and knew they didn't know), or did they lie because they knew the truth and hid it?  Does that matter?  They lied either way.

Honesty would have been to say how much was uncertain and let the individual choose along with their doctor's advice.  That's not what happened.

This has been beaten to death in the COVID threads.

I'm done.

That’s absolutely to be expected.

COVID starts, nobody is vaccinated; therefore, 100% of COVID deaths are among the unvaccinated, and 0% are among the vaccinated.

Fast forward to when 80% of the population is vaccinated… Even if you are LESS likely to die from COVID than an unvaccinated person, it’s to be expected that a higher percentage of COVID deaths will come from the vaccinated population, because the overwhelming majority of people are vaccinated.

If you watch the videos I linked, you'll see where the promise was NOT that the vaccine made you less likely to die.  The promise was that it would PREVENT contracting, transmission and death from COVID.

What they marketed then and what the narrative is now are not the same.

Growing proportion of COVID
deaths occur among vaccinated: analysis




WTF: Vaccinated Are Now The Majority of COVID Deaths


58% based on an August analysis

She's 85.

She's lived a life of luxury, fame and fortune.

Her cancer is treatable and has an 80% survival rate.

With her resources, I think her chances of squeezing a few more years out of her mortal eventuality (which we all face) are relatively good.

Think how much more enjoyable her life would have been without that moniker "Hanoi Jane" following her everywhere like a sick albatross!

She contributes nothing to my life.  When she's gone, I'll hardly take notice -- unlike the media.

I wonder what happens if you refuse to answer this?

Tell them you were given up for adoption at birth, so you have no idea who your biological parents are and no idea what "ethnic extraction/s" they may have been..

However, if they want, you can put down your adopted parents are aboriginal pygmies ...

Suicide rates typically increase during the holiday months.

He's been an employee of Walmart since 2010.. I highly doubt he was a disgruntled employee unless he was just fired.

Many, if not most, mass shootings are suicidal -- they just decided to take a few with them.

Your wrong. Why do you choose to lie and spread misinformation?

[snip after OP accuses others of that which xhe is guilty]

information that while unclassified alone MAY become classified when combined.  Nothing is confirmed.

Information that is unclassified remains unclassified.  If it is combined with other unclassified information that becomes sensitive when viewed together, it's STILL UNCLASSIFIED.

The term for such aggregated information that may become sensitive is EEFI -- Essential Elements of Friendly Information.

I'm simply calling out the inconsistencies in the statements made regarding safety and why the improvements weren't "necessary" before now.

The timing is suspect -- given the overlap with the Bruen decision and Hawaii's "may issue" scheme being demolished.

This is what I was trying to say ... why hasn't anyone looked into this problem until now?

SCOTUS decision?  CCW licensing? Avalanche of unconstitutional gun laws about to fall?

HNN Investigates also uncovered documents that show the city has been aware of lead
contamination at the range for at least two decades, but did little to protect its workers
or educate them about the potential danger.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/11/23/doh-now-involved-probe-into-possible-lead-contamination-oahus-only-public-shooting-range/

No accountability ... no responsibility.  Just promises and SURPRISE when decades-old problems are "suddenly" identified as a health threat.

I am pretty sure a conviction under the espionage act is a disqualification.

You can drop the "pretty" part ...