[AndyTheBear]

Ok I can prove the jabs never cause young athletes to suddenly die of heart issues by using the brilliant method David Hume did in his essay on Miracles:

1) We know that every such death that happened before 2021 was a non-jab death, and there were at least some each year.

2) Starting right at 2021 there was an explosion of reports of such deaths, which shows how excitable and silly anti-jab crazy people are and gives us more refined smarter sophisticated people good reason to pooh-pooh what they say.

3) For any of these much greater number of such deaths starting in 2021, it is therefore possible that the particular death would have happened anyway and is not jab related.

4) Thus we have a total of zero confirmed cases of such deaths being jab related since this can in turn be said of each such sudden death.

5) Therefore the probability of any such a death being jab related is 0 divided by whatever number of cases of such deaths not being jab related there are, which we know to at least include those prior to 2021. This of course comes out to a probability of 0.

6) Therefore none of the explosion in such sudden deaths among young athletes are due to the jab (since they each have a probability of 0 to be so).

Now what could possibly be wrong with my use of David Hume's logic?

[gas_dr]

Assumption 2. The explosion of reports of said deaths is a function of the highly politicized need to be right on both sides. It is also a function that of the 8.1 billion people on the face of the earth at least 6 billion have access to the World Wide Web and therefore anything can be broadcast. Additionally you take no account for bias nor the theory that looking for something causes it to be reported more even in the absence of an absolute increase of the event.

There is a finite and well described number of the incidence of sudden cardiac death in the 3rd and 4th decade of life. The question is there an increase in the number actually or an increase in the reports. Thus far there is no increase in incidence.

Your use of an indirect proof is also not logically sound. There are direct ways of proof so an indirect method based on another’s philosophy is also not sound.

[bagster]

Now what could possibly be wrong with my use of David Hume's logic?

Here's where you began wrong.... Thus we have a total of zero confirmed cases of such deaths being jab related since this can in turn be said of each such sudden death.

Let's pretend there ARE zero confirmed cases if that makes you happy. Still we have the uptick in the number of deaths AND cardiac issues, not to mention other various maladies as reported by numerous other countries and a myriad of science nerds.

The only thing being different between pre and post jab is....yes, you guessed it, THE JAB!

So, the earth gives your post the following score....

Nice dance, doh.