I asked this on another post…
Can someone explain this to me like I am Slo-Joe:
So Pfizer had evidence after 3 months from the start of the rollout / trial during Dec 20-Feb 21 that there were ~1200 deaths and thousands of AEs among the 42000 guinea pigs in this time period. Then they went on to conclude in this report that all is fine and proceed as planned. And the reason they could do this (apart form being an evil Bond movie mega corp whose power transcends law, government and ethics) is, as far as I can tell, is because they are essentially claiming those deaths and injuries were going to happen to those people anyway, during that time period of their lives, so correlation is not causation, plausible deniability, blah blah blah? Am I reading this correctly? The defence is “those victim-patients would have died / had heart attack / cardiological and neurological injuries / etc at that time anyway, regardless of the injectable products?”
I asked this on another post… Can someone explain this to me like I am Slo-Joe:
So Pfizer had evidence after 3 months from the start of the rollout / trial during Dec 20-Feb 21 that there were ~1200 deaths and thousands of AEs among the 42000 guinea pigs in this time period. Then they went on to conclude in this report that all is fine and proceed as planned. And the reason they could do this (apart form being an evil Bond movie mega corp whose power transcends law, government and ethics) is, as far as I can tell, is because they are essentially claiming those deaths and injuries were going to happen to those people anyway, during that time period of their lives, so correlation is not causation, plausible deniability, blah blah blah? Am I reading this correctly? The defence is “those victim-patients would have died / had heart attack / cardiological and neurological injuries / etc at that time anyway, regardless of the injectable products?”
They's playing god.