I’m totally here for the message and support it (my child is completely unvaccinated), but thank you for pointing this out.
I was about to post the discrepancies but checked the comments first.
Accuracy matters. It only hurts us when we try to have these difficult conversations with people, then cannot substantiate our claims, however minimal the discrepancy may be.
" "For child death reports, 79.4% received >1 vaccine on the same day." "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750021001268
• Additive or synergistic toxicity may occur following multivalent vaccination.
• Infant deaths post-vaccination are often misclassified as SIDS or suffocation in bed.
• Of all reported SIDS cases post-vaccination, 75 % occurred within 7 days (p < 0.00001).
Every one of those claims is different from the one in the image.
"Every one of those claims is different from the one in the image."
...why is this important...
...what is the bottom line...
The importance is the clarity and accuracy of the message. Is the claim in the image even present in the source material?
I’m totally here for the message and support it (my child is completely unvaccinated), but thank you for pointing this out.
I was about to post the discrepancies but checked the comments first.
Accuracy matters. It only hurts us when we try to have these difficult conversations with people, then cannot substantiate our claims, however minimal the discrepancy may be.
"The importance is the clarity and accuracy of the message. Is the claim in the image even present in the source material?"
...thank you for taking the time to clarify your original assertion...
...carry on...
lol. good one. misinfo is necessary