Gavin de Becker

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.

They don't.

They quit early and they take a massive break from all the subdividing and language prose bullshit they're doing and they go away for a few months.

And then they come back and one guy says, you know what we should say?

We should say maybe if it happens, meaning autism or brain damage, it happens maybe once in a thousand times, maybe once in 10,000 times, maybe once in a million.

In other words, without a calculator, this guy just went from a rate a thousand times different, one in a thousand to one in a million.

He's such a genius that he can accomplish that.

I mean, it is an embarrassment.