Commentary found on the net.
'When it comes to safety and efficacy, things really seem to be upside-down. Pharma doesn't have to prove it is safe. No - you have to prove it's unsafe and they get to do the accounting. Amazing. Essentially, Pharma is innocent until proven guilty, even though they are career felons - and they get to pick the jury and judge from among their former cellmates. And if you don't like what's in VAERS, you can just dismissively wave your hand and - without a shred of evidence - claim its unreliable because it over-reports. The system you yourself made to report adverse effects is just summarily dismissed. Again, amazing.

It's as though the little suggestion box slot is actually a slot to the paper shredder.

And, as Karen Kingston showed, "efficacy" is now so flimsy as to mean that if you can reduce the IRR from 1.3% to 1.29% with a CI of 95%, the world will think you have a 95% effective vaccine if you just spin it enough and purposely conflate CI with efficacy. This was jaw-dropping to me. That the true efficacy (a 1% reduction in an IRR of 1.3%) was being conflated with the much more impressive-sounding number of 95% (the Confidence Interval). An even more so, that this laughably miniscule reduction (essentially 1% of 1%) was seen as worth all the trouble for a virus that was really not that lethal in the grand scheme of things.' - Steve

Read more here: [karenkingston.substack.com]