I never used either to claim it proved an unrelated point.What about the stuff you've claimed over last couple of days? Anticoagulants? PCR changes? Someone put them in your head but both easily checked and clarified.
The NHS is committing to spend £3.2 billion on anticoagulants over 2.5 years, when the normal budget is £200 million a year. That is a verifiable fact, I merely posed a question if it was related to Covid vaccines. Your explanations may have been correct but they are not verifiable facts, unless you’ve seen a breakdown of that £3.2 billion spending.
The CDC is withdrawing PCR tests, that is verifiable fact. I questioned if billionaires used prior knowledge of this fact for inside trading. Again your answers may or may not have been correct but certainly couldn’t be proven. I pointed out that a couple of your explanations seemed a bit unconvincing to me as the same reasons could be levelled at every other test that isn’t being withdrawn. However I then conceded that just because it didn’t seem logical to me there was every chance you were correct as Covid policy in general never seems to follow any logical pattern.
I asked questions about apparent coincidences. Remember when “the Science” was about believing nothing on blind faith, questioning everything, looking at and dissecting every possible situation or outcome.
Now apparently “the Science” means “we can’t disclose the exact details of our studies however these are our conclusions. You will accept these conclusions and you won’t ask any awkward questions. These conclusions are subject to change, without further studies if we change our minds.”