The dichotomy between usual practice (mRNA/LNPjabbing) and enforcing a post hoc rigorous "scientific" experimental scrutiny of a temporally related jab injury or death means that any suggestion where there may be a <95% probability of confounding is auto-dismissed.
Instead of relying on the legal balance 50/50 of evidence, an ideological…
The dichotomy between usual practice (mRNA/LNPjabbing) and enforcing a post hoc rigorous "scientific" experimental scrutiny of a temporally related jab injury or death means that any suggestion where there may be a <95% probability of confounding is auto-dismissed.
Instead of relying on the legal balance 50/50 of evidence, an ideological metric is imposed rendering it improbable that an adverse event will be causally related to the jab. And that is before the physical, financial and coercive impeding of reporting is applied.
Scam, assault and hide. There just aren't sufficient lamp posts in Christendom.
The dichotomy between usual practice (mRNA/LNPjabbing) and enforcing a post hoc rigorous "scientific" experimental scrutiny of a temporally related jab injury or death means that any suggestion where there may be a <95% probability of confounding is auto-dismissed.
Instead of relying on the legal balance 50/50 of evidence, an ideological metric is imposed rendering it improbable that an adverse event will be causally related to the jab. And that is before the physical, financial and coercive impeding of reporting is applied.
Scam, assault and hide. There just aren't sufficient lamp posts in Christendom.