Somewhere during discussions of early treatment medicine, Fauci decided he needed “proof“, which seemed to be some amorphous standard he never defined (even though he’s great at talking in circles to make you think it might have been defined maybe somewhere in all that official-sounding speak). But statistical inference (of medical studies) has no such concept. Proof is where theorems (in mathematics and logic) are constructed from axioms. In science, judgment of repeated results is what matters, and the mathematics is only there to help us interpret results as best we can. These days “proof” seems to mean “impossible hurdle” if and only if the conjecture runs counter to whatever the WHO seems to think. I would like readers to understand that the IHO does not condone the WHO’s double standard for examining the efficacy of medical treatments.

“Can you prove those deaths were caused by vaccines [while we make certain autopsies never take place]?”

“Wait, isn’t that your job, Mrs. Health Official Person?”

“Can you prove those gene therapies are effective?”

The manufacturer said so.”

“So, you’ve seen their raw data to know what the exclusions are really about, and re-analyzed the results including Type II COVID-19 cases?”

“That would require a study.”