He makes a good point. Any error or false attribution would bring doubt on the entire refutation of the jabs.
I'm not necessarily sure why that burden of accuracy and proof lies on those trying to avoid having their health possibly damaged or ruined, but that's the way it is.
Gross misstatements of fact and outright lies are just fine for one side, but misspell one name or attribute one incident incorrectly, and those challenging the narrative are summarily dismissed.
All this means, is that we must cautiously embrace the concept that any account or data to the contrary of the narrative must, and I mean MUST be vetted, verified, and have all the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed, a far higher standard than the nonsense of masks/no masks/masks of "Safe and effective" we have been subjected to.
It is why I am cautious of information that is not peer-reviewed at this point (journal articles and studies are now in much greater supply than that early on), and even then like to examine whether the findings support the conclusions as reported in the MSM and other non scientific press. It is so easy for some to forget that this is not a contest of an "Us" versus a "Them", but instead a quest for truth, hopefully a truth, apolitical, verifiable, and unsoiled by pecuniary or political agendae, that will help guide the discussion in any future incidents.
