It's an expected defense that's for sure, but not an integrity move.  But since when has any of this been about integrity.

 The exhibit is pretty broad, but not in my opinion conclusive at this time.  I haven't been able to go through it a third time with a second analysis group though.


https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21207246/exhibits-in-jackson-v-ventavi...


 Again the problem I have is claiming millions were damaged instead of just being honest and saying the clinical trials need to be examined.  Before we go through the "but millions were damaged!!!!" thing just look at the numbers:

 The data presented here indicates over 300,000 kids died in TX from heart attacks in 2021.  Has anyone observed anything that would support this?

"If people would just be honest and not pump stuff up, then people would sloow down and actually Look at things .  Start tossing unrealistic numbers around and people won't even look."

 I agree.  This is why it's so hard to take stuff from a lot of these websites seriously.

 For instance when it comes to cardiac events in children, the increase rate is something near .0456.  That's not an impressive number when you look at it like that, except when compared to past records it is higher than what would be expected.

 So is there an issue?  Yes.

 Is it killing a ton of kids?  No.


 The thing is we don't need thousands of dead kids to work on the problem.