Of course I didn't read it. I just waited for you to explain why it was wrong.
The point is there are many reasons other than selfishness involved.

[Link]

Ok, I read the link and it does not change anything, in fact it says that what Biden said is "it's not accurate that you won’t get COVID-19 if you’re vaccinated."!

It doesn't matter a jot that he said it as part of a question and answer session. You might as well try to deny that something a defendant said at a Crown Court isn't what he or she meant because it was part of a broader cross-examination.

Of course it matters. You cannot judge a book by its cover or see a jigsaw from one piece. You need to see the whole picture and put the remark in its context, including not what was said but why it was said.

Evidence in a Crown Court is also valued in the round. Should a series of contradictory statements be made then the defence barrister would reopen the questioning and ensure clarity was established. In this case the opposition are seizing on any smell of blood like a pack of rabid dogs and the victim has no chance to explain.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

We are not talking about a book and its cover or a jigsaw puzzle. We are talking about the President of the United States saying that you will not catch COVID if you have the vaccination. He clearly said it. He may well believe what he said, but it is accepted that it is factually incorrect. He may not believe what he said, so is a liar. He may be such a confused old man that he doesn’t know one way or the other. Whichever the case it is ridiculous, but typical, of you to try to try to muddy the waters.

As for the Crown Court, are you saying, for instance, that a landlord pleading guilty to not maintaining his gas appliances can claim that his plea is being taken out of context?

This thread already has "Findings and Recommendations of the Covid Inquiry" written on the cover
The waters of investigative interest will be so muddied by conflicts of interest, that no person(s)/department will be found culpable and all recommendations will be limited to, "must try a bit better next time"
That's no disrespect to contributory posters, but rather just the way things tend to go. Entrenched positions and little light shone on the truth.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Neutral you say? Why should we trust fact checkers in any sense then?

At the end of the day Biden provided false information. Why can't you accept that? There is no grey area! It is black and white. It's false! Not True. If it was trump then you and the fact checkers would be all over it like a rash.