Gavin de Becker

I would like to know how this panel is going to specify the question.

In other words, this guy is a fucking chucklehead.

And this is what he's obsessed with and talking about.

The next guy, Dr. Goodman, he talks all through the thing, and he's impossible to understand, literally impossible to understand.

Here's his quote.

In the end, the bottom line is the only verdict that matters or is of importance is whether we say a causal relationship.

Between vaccines and autism is likely or suggested or unlikely or inadequate.

That is the only metric.

As soon as we start introducing any other words that sort of sidestep to causality, but we're not going to say causality, I think we would introduce confusion.

Now, I read that 30 times writing this book.

I don't understand what the fuck he's saying.

That's all they do is introduce confusion.

And they sit there for day after day after day talking not about science.

They're scientific experts talking about words.

What do you mean?

By the way, they barely do stay awake because one of them says, if we want to subdivide, subdivide the categories, and boy, did they ever want to subdivide, then I think we have to use, there seems to be a strong association, which we can't explain, or we don't have any other explanation for it, or, however, we don't want to make a causal claim because we know from many observational studies, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

He actually says, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That's what they know from observational studies.

And we shouldn't put it in the sufficient category because that will – their fear was that people would be afraid to take vaccines, right?

Now, you asked how they stay awake.