You can't argue with anything that comes out of the corporate press.

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?

> 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?

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.

Also, where is the block of salt for the death rate? It was already absurdly low without factoring in everyone that got sick, recovered easily, and never reported.

Happy to have my perspective changed.

If you're genuinely open to new information, I would direct your attention to excess deaths[1]. There is more likely underreporting of deaths than inflation.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

> You can't argue with anything that comes out of the corporate press.

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?