You

Kek.

Looo you used it first

Look

I think you're trying to back-pedal now. This is quite humorous.

> So you're saying that less then 10% of the population are vaccinated for variolation?
@Saturn

Variolation was a method to counter smallpox

Literally used it first

I knew its wrong

As a question, since you seemed to think it was a disease.

Which it isn't.

But since you are illiterate i went with it a little

I never said its a disease

You appear to of thought so.

You said that first and i went with it

It is okay, though.

No

I quoted you

You don't have to worry.

Look up

"Well, if you'd like to know the specific reason, Variolation played a huge part initially in preventing the spread of those diseases, the former specifically."

"Its easily debunked by the simple fact less than 10 percent of the people vaccinated for it"

You don't think people are falling for that, do you?

Okay where did i say variolation is a disease

Regardless, I don't need to reason with you since both you and I know where you slipped up.

Others, however.

Need to know the distinction.

I didnt though

Variolation isn't something you are vaccinated for

You just play dumb

It is a technique that was primarily used prior to vaccines.

And was quite invasive, and expensive.

> So you're saying that less then 10% of the population are vaccinated for variolation?
@Saturn

> So, to verify again, 10% of the world population is vaccinated against variolation?
@Saturn

You fail to realize that you responding with "Yes" to this clarifies that you do think you need a vaccine for variolation.

No it shows that i go along with your stupidity

I'm was clarifying your wording for the specific reason of it seemed you were claiming you needed a vaccine for a technique.

But whatever floats your boat

Never have i worded that

Evidently, if that's so, it was your own ineptitude that was the reason the question was brought up.

You cant quote me that i worded it as a disease though

Before