And guess what? Its not documentation that a vaccine DIDN'T cause the event.
Yet YOU say there are zero events.
I call that funny.
I know one thing for sure. Your education wasn't in logic. What was it in, anyway? You never did say.
And guess what? Its not documentation that a vaccine DIDN'T cause the event.
Yet YOU say there are zero events.
I call that funny.
I know one thing for sure. Your education wasn't in logic. What was it in, anyway? You never did say.
I haven’t said there are zero events. I’ve said - consistently - that there are zero cases in the US or the UK where a medical investigation into an individual’s death has determined that the death was the result of a COVID-19 vaccine. And that is true. And you have zero evidence against that.
So you’re back to innuendo, insinuation, and unsubstantiated claims.
Like I said, if and when the day arrives that you have any actual evidence of someone’s death being caused by a COVID-19 vaccine, I have no doubt you’ll be proudly trumpeting it from the rooftops. But you don’t have any evidence of even a single death actually being CAUSED by a vaccine (rather than simply taking place at some point in the future after a person had been vaccinated). So no trumpet just yet.
He’s selectively applying which event he applies the null hypothesis to.
For infection, null hypothesis is to assume all adverse events and death are due to the c00f.
For the jab, the null hypothesis is to assume all adverse events and death are non-existent (hysteria, rumor); and only if forensically validated, are they even to be admitted to exist; and even then, it is assumed they must be unrelated to the jab.
Because *SCIENCE*™.