Latest German Study Calls To Stop Vax Pgrm Due to Increased Mortality!

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Kokomojojo, Jul 7, 2024.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Holy crap that means people are dying because they got vaxd!

    Mass COVID-19 vaccination around the globe has raised alarms in the public health community for many reasons.

    Kuhbandner and Reitzner from Universitat Regensburg and Universit¨at Osnabruck, respectively, integrated mortality data from all 16 German States and vaccination rates from the Robert Koch Institute for the pandemic years, 2020, 2021, and 2022. This was first reported to the public by TrialSite News.

    If COVID-19 vaccination really reduced rates of COVID-19 death and was safe as asserted by government agencies, then mortality rates should have gone down over the pandemic for two reasons:

    1) culling effect in 2020 with older more elderly frail individuals succumbing to SARS-CoV-2 infection,

    2) mortality benefit from mass vaccination and boosters. No mass vaccination campaign should ever increase population death rates.

    By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

    [​IMG]

    https://www.researchgate.net/public...uring_the_COVID-19_Pandemic/citation/download


    They call for a total withdrawal of ALL c19 vaxes as clearly the mortality rate has increased!
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it means you once again pick up on the absurd and ignore the reasoned. Some quite ludicrous correlation/causation being used, alongside some appalling statistical assessments for full figures.
    Hmmm. This tripe was reported by "Peter A McCullough" the doctor with his own side-line in "funding"? The antivax campaigner championed by "cut and pasters" everywhere!
    This is a man who routinely gets terrible peer reviews !
    https://science.feedback.org/reviewed-content-author/peter-mccullough
    I strongly suggest anyone clicks that link to see how this guy gets his ass handed to him.

    Now, this analysis: Useless and inept was the assessment from the Barmer Institute.
    False: There is a direct connection between COVID vaccines and excess mortality – eufactcheck.eu
    "The study by psychologist Christof Kuhbandner from the University of Regensburg and mathematician Matthias Reitzner from the University of Osnabrück also fueled anti-vaccination suspicions. Their study, “Estimation of Excess Mortality in Germany During 2020-2022,” names COVID-19 vaccinations as a possible trigger for increased mortality. The scientists question how mortality could rise despite vaccination, as the opposite is normally expected. The study shows that with the increase in vaccinations, the death rate also rose, but it completely ignores the fact that an increase in infections was also observed during the same period. Jonas Schöley, a research associate at the Max Planck Institute, explained in an ARD interview that there were more factors than vaccination numbers that differentiated the years 2020, 2021, and 2022.

    Schöley was proven right because, in a later study by the The Barmer Institute for Health System Research (BIFG) in 2023, the work of Kuhbandner and Reitzner was completely refuted. Instead, it became clear that over three-quarters of the excess mortality was associated with a prior COVID-19 infection. The BIFG assumes that previous data collection was simply incomplete, as it focused only on infections with laboratory confirmation and therefore could not establish a connection between COVID-19 and the deaths.

    Even though there were a total of 1,802 suspected cases of the COVID-19 vaccine as the cause of death from December 2020 to September 2021, only 48 deaths have been definitively attributed to the vaccine after examination.

    Conclusion
    Judging by all these points, the AfD’s statement is false. The suspected connection between COVID-19 vaccinations and an increased death rate is merely a spurious correlation that has been suggested in various officially debunked works."



    /THREAD!
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2024
    FreshAir likes this.
  3. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    153,189
    Likes Received:
    64,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    " it became clear that over three-quarters of the excess mortality was associated with a prior COVID-19 infection. "

    so not the vaccine
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, not the vaccine. That comes from the Barmer Institute's study which used ALL data properly. The problem is, will the OP actually concede it! Or must we endure yet another generic antivax thread. The other problem is this campaign of creating thread after thread without even the slightest tendency to verify any of the antivax crap, before dumping it here. The last problem which I believe is the fundamental issue, most people who are unconvinced either way, may well be swayed by this tsunami of disinformation/misinformation/spam. Regardless of the fact that every one of these threads is being systematically debunked.

    The Barmer study "assumes" "previous data collection was simply incomplete, as it focused only on infections with laboratory confirmation". It assumes absense of intent or malice. Hmmm.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PLONK
    Typical when these guys are the first to bring the info forward, now as can be seen in several other posts in this section are proven to be true through many independent sources worldwide.
    PLONK
    No such study to be found in the links provided.

    /DISINFO-SPAM
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2024
    Eleuthera likes this.
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proof the vax did not work :roflol:

    and here is the bharmer nonsense posted to refute the study:

    [​IMG]

    laughable
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2024
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is a very well done study based upon available information.

    Of course the fly in the vaxer ointment is if studies performed using all available data are not good enough to draw a correlation, then the ad nauseum mantra "safe and effective" and the vax is a success is a bald faced lie.
    So go ahead claim the data is not good enough!:deadhorse::roflol:
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2024
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. The OP will not concede it. The Barmer study takes ALL the data, correctly correlates it and PROVES that the OP study is antivax batshit and PROVES that no amount of data will change his opinion.
    See my signature.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I mean seriously? What is that supposed to mean?
    Gibberish.
    The bright blue bolded links? I've made them bigger to help out.
    Your failure to understand how links work does not equate to either disinformation or spam. This is very poor evasion of where your crappy batshit OP gets debunked.
    So from the big, clearly visible blue link were further clearly defined blue links. The salient parts of the Barmer report were accurately reported. All so very simple for any honest person to follow:

    ibid
    "Schöley was proven right because, in a later study by the The Barmer Institute for Health System Research(BIFG) in 2023, the work of Kuhbandner and Reitzner was completely refuted. Instead, it became clear that over three-quarters of the excess mortality was associated with a prior COVID-19 infection. The BIFG assumes that previous data collection was simply incomplete, as it focused only on infections with laboratory confirmation and therefore could not establish a connection between COVID-19 and the deaths."

    The LATER STUDY :
    https://www.bifg.de/publikationen/epaper/10.30433/ePGSF.2023.005


    For those confused about how to translate, download that document, go to Google Translate, select document and simply upload it.

    AS stated, the OP is hogwash, very poorly used data and 100% proven.

    Now it has been 100% proven that the the data refuting the OP was not "disinformation/spam", the viewers await an honest reply as to why this useless thread should be taken seriously.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2024
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You dont even know what ALL THE DATA MEANS! Sounded really good though, like really professional n all that ****.

    • However they failed to distinguish between those vaccinated and those who were unvacinated.
    • They did not separate those vaxed that caught covid versus those unvaxed that caught covid. Really messes up the pro vax advertising
    • They assumed that because many had covid when they died that covid was the fault not the vax or the combination of the vax with the infection.
    • They should not have caught covid if they were vaxd!!!
    • So much for all the data, their study is severely defective to the claims they are trying to make even though I agree their data source is better their analysis is not.

    PLONK!

    You argued your way into a beeeeaaaaauuuutiful self made trap.

    If the vax worked all those people would not have been infected in the first place! But they were! Many were vaxd and had covid and died!

    So much for a vax to SAVE THE OLD PEOPLE!

    [​IMG]

    Clearly these people think its aok for the old people to all die off!

    Nice fail!

    Im not going to await more spam disinfo, seen enough, and I have no doubt we will see volumes more in a few minutes!

    5, 4, 3, 2, 1.....


    /DISINFO-SPAM
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2024
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Luckily Barmer do. These would be the people who took ALL the data and applied it properly. They came up with key findings which you have ignored.
    Sigh. If you are going to mention the word "professional", you might like to look at your own posts.
    Utter hogwash. As has exhaustively been pointed out to you, the vaccine gives the immune system a fighting chance!
    If you are going to mention the word "professional", you might like to look at your own posts. Is this another flounce?
    ibid.
    • The OP was a useless and inept analysis and was corrected by the Barmer Institute.
    • The OP study shows that with the increase in vaccinations, the death rate also rose, but it completely ignores the fact that an increase in infections was also observed during the same period.
    • Jonas Schöley, a research associate at the Max Planck Institute, explained in an ARD interview that there were more factors than vaccination numbers that differentiated the years 2020, 2021, and 2022.
    • Schöley was proven right because, in a later study by the The Barmer Institute for Health System Research (BIFG) in 2023, the work of Kuhbandner and Reitzner was completely refuted.
    • Instead, it became clear that over three-quarters of the excess mortality was associated with a prior COVID-19 infection. The BIFG assumes that previous data collection was simply incomplete, as it focused only on infections with laboratory confirmation and therefore could not establish a connection between COVID-19 and the deaths.
    • Even though there were a total of 1,802 suspected cases of the COVID-19 vaccine as the cause of death from December 2020 to September 2021, only 48 deaths have been definitively attributed to the vaccine after examination.
    • Judging by all these points, the AfD’s statement is false. The suspected connection between COVID-19 vaccinations and an increased death rate is merely a spurious correlation that has been suggested in various officially debunked works."
    Viewers will once again note that no amount of evidence, even when coming from virtually the same source and totally refuting their argument, will sway the endless-spam beliefs that we are seeing in this sub-forum!
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regardless of how much data Barmer had it not possible to refute Kuhbandner and Reitzner with a defective model as pointed out in post:

    • However they failed to distinguish between those vaccinated and those who were unvacinated.


    • They did not separate those vaxed that caught covid versus those unvaxed that caught covid. Really messes up the pro vax advertising campaign!

    • They assumed that because many had covid when they died that covid was the fault not the vax or the combination of the vax with the infection.

    • They should not have caught covid if they were vaxd!!!

    • So much for all the data, their study is severely defective to the claims they are trying to make even though I agree their data source is better their analysis is a fail.

    PLONK!

    You argued your way into a beeeeaaaaauuuutiful self made trap.

    If the vax worked all those people would not have been infected in the first place! But they were! Many were vaxd and had covid and died!

    So much for a vax to SAVE THE OLD PEOPLE!

    [​IMG]

    Clearly these people think its aok for the old people to all die off!

    Nice fail!

    Viewers will once again note that based on a Barmers defective model only 48 deaths have been attributed to the vaccine and no amount of evidence proving Barmers failure, will sway the endless-spam beliefs that we are seeing in this sub-forum!

    Im not going to await more spam disinfo, seen enough, and I have no doubt we will see volumes more in a few minutes!

    5, 4, 3, 2, 1.....


    /DISINFO-SPAM
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2024
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gibberish. I await an apostrophe.

    The Barmer study, correctly applying the data, (ibid) it became clear that over three-quarters of the excess mortality was associated with a prior COVID-19 infection.

    Viewers will be wondering why we keep getting the same meaningless graph and the fabricated list in red. The data is very specific, the OP study screwed up, it missed that 75% were previously infected by the virus. Now we're getting noise about the vaccine not stopping infection:
    Benefits of Getting A COVID-19 Vaccine | CDC
    "What You Need to Know
    There are many benefits of getting vaccinated against COVID-19.

    • Prevents serious illness: COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States are safe and effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying.
    • A safer way to build protection: Getting a COVID-19 vaccine is a safer, more reliable way to build protection than getting sick with COVID-19.
    • Offers added protection: COVID-19 vaccines can offer added protection to people who had COVID-19, including protection against being hospitalized from a new infection.
    How to be best protected: As with vaccines for other diseases, people are best protected when they stay up to date.

    COVID-19 Vaccines Protect Your Health
    COVID 19-vaccines are effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. Vaccination remains the safest strategy for avoiding hospitalizations, long-term health outcomes, and death.

    What You Can Do Now to Prevent Severe Illness, Hospitalization, and Death
    Use Vaccines.gov – to find a COVID-19 vaccine near you.

    CDC recommends everyone aged 5 years and older get 1 updated COVID-19 vaccine. Children aged 6 months – 4 years may need more than 1 dose of updated COVID-19 to stay up to date. People aged 65 years and older who received 1 dose of any updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or Novavax) should receive 1 additional dose of an updated COVID-19 vaccine at least 4 months after the previous updated dose. For more Novavax information, click or tap here.

    Severe Illness
    COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing the most severe outcomes from a COVID-19 infection.

    Myocarditis is a condition where the heart becomes inflamed in response to an infection or some other trigger. Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare. This study shows that patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19.

    Hospitalization
    COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent you from becoming hospitalized if you do get infected with COVID-19.

    Death
    COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent you from dying if you do get infected with COVID-19.

    COVID-19 Vaccination is a Safer, More Reliable Way to Build Protection""
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    drama hyperbole

    Proof was given it did not correctly apply the data.

    so what? failure to rebut
    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement

    /SPAM-DISINFO



    Meantime these issues remain unaccounted for and the omission unexplained!


     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    bifg-ePaper-uebersterblichkeit-bf (2) - Jumpshare
    PDF translation.
    "In the recent public debate, study results have been
    taken up that question a connection between this excess mortality and COVID-19 and instead suggest a link with COVID-19 vaccinations. These evaluations are
    based - like the majority of all analyses of excess mortality - on aggregated time series data that do not allow direct conclusions to be drawn about individual
    connections between disease and mortality.

    In addition, the estimated excess mortality was not adjusted for other mortality relevant diseases that can dilute a connection between excess mortality and
    COVID-19. The present analysis addresses these limitations using routine data from statutory health insurance (GKV routine data). These data from around 10.5 million insured persons allow mortality, demographic characteristics and diseases to be represented at the individual level. The analysis results show that an adjustment for morbidity, especially in older age groups, has a strong influence on the estimated excess mortality for the years 2020 to 2022."

    Viewers will note that the spammed list in red is the same for the OP. The difference between the two studies is that the OP makes unfounded assumptions/correlations about vaccination numbers and excess mortality ( ie. makes it up ). The Barmer study goes one step further and takes in proper insurance data and drills it down to an individual level!

    "Overall, our results contradict those of Kuhbandner and Reitzner (2023) in all key aspects. This particularly applies to the clear allocation of excess mortality to older age groups resulting from our analyses and the strong connection between excess mortality and COVID-19. In view of the superiority of the database we used in this regard, which allows an allocation of mortality and disease, through COVID-19 vaccinations (Baden et al., 2020; Polack et al., 2020)."
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2024
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    deleted reply to deleted
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2024
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    reply to the NOW deleted reply to deleted

    Never for fraud, the likes of the Barmer study

    Remains dodged and unrefuted

    Barmer skewed the results in favor of the vax as stated

    Viewers will be wondering why we keep getting the same meaningless:

    SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizements

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP
    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP
    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP
    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP
    COVID-19 Vaccination is a Safer, More Reliable Way to Build Protection""[/QUOTE]

    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP
    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP
    MORE REPEATED AD NAUSEUM SPAM - OFF TOPIC advertizement
    Nothing to do with the OP

    Im sorry folks, I have no ability to prevent someone from dodging the issues and SPAMming my threads with the same obnoxious fact avoiding spam.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2024
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the study that used actual insurance data to drill down at an individual level is "fraud" and the crappy one that assumed absolute absurd batshit isn't?
    Nope.
    Nope. They included extra data. Just that. No skewing. Their data included insurance information specific to individuals. What we are seeing here is a rather inept attempt at arm-waving away a total slam-dunk of the OP.
    Responses? Like these?
    That's just ridiculous! I cite THE study from Barmer refuting the OP 100% because it takes drilled down data and according to this person it's nothing to do with the OP!
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2024
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your responses do not address the OP.

    I point out its failure in red above, its clear you cannot argue the actual data and cant find anyone online to support that failure since you ignore the issue completely wholly without a response.

    There drilling down deeper was used to pull deaths away from the vaxd, which cheats the original in the OP, since the Original can be re-done the same way and will again make the same point.

    One needs a fairly good understanding of statistics to correctly address these matters.

    I do not see that in any rebuttals here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2024
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes they do! The Barmer study refutes your study which made ludicrous assumptions absent of the data used by Barmer!
    They aren't failures, the Barmer study used better data. The OP was 100% refuted. Deal with it!
    Well duh. You mean looking at the data told them that most were infected with the damn virus, hundreds of times more likely to cause death!
    Because it makes faulty assumptions, absent of correlation or causation.
    What has that got to do with you!?
    That merely shows you lack the necessary understanding, provided by the Barmer paper.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proof Barmer is off topic ad nauseum repeated spam
    UNsupported opinion until the issues I stated are addressed.
    Nice try.
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the Barmer study which details exactly HOW it refutes the useless findings in the OP, specifically drills down the SAME DATA, shows exactly the mechanism by which the OP is faulty.....is off topic?
    It's the opinion of the people who co-authored the Barmer institute paper 100% refuting the useless conclusions in the OP.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2024
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,952
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have seen this before and completely ignore that the green line is the hugely increased death toll of people who got the first jab.

    clearly excess deaths from the vax, provided the statisticians dont cheat as Barmer did.

    every country had the same or very similr results.


    [​IMG]

    All age groups!
    More dead vaxd than unvaxed any way you want to sing the tune WITHOUT CHEATING.

    Thats right Deal with it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2024
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    God yes, spammed across numerous threads and the same evasion to slam-dunk rebuttal on this.
     

Share This Page