But an accumulation of anecdotes from myriad sources many of whom possess legitimate judgement to have an informed opinion to adjudicate probability of what they are seeing is compelling
Compelling to anyone with common sense that is
[This is meant to exclude any dolt who insists "only high-impact journal peer-reviewed paper" counts as evidence]
So let's look at this CDC anecdote from @MarcusBlimi
We'll even grant presumption that it's accurate😉
What does it show?
Does it make sense to extrapolate this as representative of CDC as an institution?
Is it just me, or do the officially credentialed "scientists" on twitter happen to be the most fragile and obnoxious narcissists humanity has to offer??
Like, bathtubs are totally sooooo deadly to kiddies
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY KIDS DROWN IN BATHTUBS EACH YEAR?? HAVE YOU NO COMPASSION!!??!!
And drowning is THE leading cause of death for kids 1-4 (besides birth defects) cdc.gov/drowning/facts…
But, I can already hear you saying, bathtubs are such a small risk & not giving your kiddo a bath is shall we say not an option at all, far too radical & not worth it??
BINGO!!!
And giving your child an untested vaccine whose trial data shows unmistakable NEGATIVE efficacy is??
Issue 1: m1Ψ (hey Blimi, do you know what that is?)
What can this do? How about dramatically ↑ spike production (yes that's bad), prevents mRNA decay (also bad), downregulates certain immune mechanisms (definitely very bad) ashmedai.substack.com/p/what-they-al…
@MarcusBlimi (BM) is essentially saying that she will only accept for proof of vaccine injuries peer-reviewed literature that analyzes a massive dataset large enough to reach statistical significance for population level extrapolation.
This is deceptive for two reasons
1. This "standard" very cagily avoids dealing with the primary evidence of vax injuries, which are not massive dataset analyses of the sort she demands (see below)
2. She is surreptitiously trying to establish a premise that this type of study is evidence for lack of vax harms