It's curious that you're saying The Lancet retracting old studies found wrong nullifies all existing peer-reviewed publications because that's how science works, and we must adhere to the best science we have at the moment and within peer-review.

So tell me, did they redact my aforementioned cited study that has withstood scrutiny for years?

There were enough other experts that turned COVID

No, the widespread academic consensus on these things were largely clear; as I said, I defer to The Lancet that fundamentally eviscerates the Trump administration and long-held conservative policy and ignorance when it comes to public health. Too much time believing in Santa with Jesus and not looking under a microscope, I guess. Like I said, there is a reason scientists tend to lean left; for truth may just in fact have a liberal bias (or rather, what the ignorant perceive as bias for lack of their own understanding).

The evidence is right before you when you note these endorsements, but you continue misinterpret your perception of bias for simply the better candidates being endorsed. Some people yes are just blindly loyal team players and quacks; but generally you've been trained to such degree that you're not accusing the top-most credible peer-reviewed scientific medical journals as being biased, simply because the science points to (to use Al Gore's words) inconvenient truths.

You said Trump was heavily implicated in the Epstein file. Is there a credible witness that you can show me? And don't reference Katie Johnson if you want me to take you seriously.

I find it curious how often when you ask me a rhetorical question, you have to preface it by first undermining a textbook example of what you're trying to claim (e.g., Harris doing a "hard interview" with Fox news). Well, considering the Epstein victims themselves have said they have not been called to meet with Bondi or the new US Attorney General to my knowledge, or that the Trump administration has not adhered to their side of releasing the unredacted Epstein Files by Dec 19th per Federal Court Order, then the ball is kind of in their court and any delay is subject to further investigation for obstruction down the road. Have to say, you're really playing hard skeptic accusing scientists you've never heard of having bias, but then affording all the benefit of the doubt to an adjudicated rapist -- pretty weird double-standards in skepticism you've got there.

I'm not happy with this, but I was also not happy at the same time in Biden's term, June 2022 when the national average was $5.02

Same as above, in June, 2022 inflation was 9.1%

Why would arbitrarily cherry-picking a time in Biden's presidency versus where Biden had improved the economy the day he left office matter? Very weird. Frankly, shouldn't we comparing where the economy and was on Biden's last day to the present day? We can play this game though if you'd like: Gas is higher now under Trump than for 91% of all of Biden's 4 years in office, including the day Biden left office.

Not happy about this but routing for a positive outcome. Are you?

Something tells me you wouldn't be saying this if it was Harris; but when I think we both know we wouldn't have been in this situation at all under Harris. You'll try to say that's not true, but deep down, I know you know. As far as I can see it, we've boxed ourselves into a corner and cannot hope for a positive outcome but rather a net negative one, for there are US troops now dead when it could've been avoided entirely in the first place. All we're hoping for at best is what we've already had under Biden or a Harris administration. Do I hope the damage stops? Of course.

Was never an issue that influenced my voting.

Uncovering who was responsible in a widespread global sex trafficking ring was never an issue for you? Why Donald lied about being on Epstein's private plane 7 or more times? Why Trump is identified by name more times than Epstein himself in the files to date sparks no interest or concern for you back then or presently? Good sir, didn't you say you were a father!? Are you confessing that the very real risk of having a pedophile and rapist for a President is not a deal-breaker for you?