#COVIDIOTS, #Scamdemic, Coronavirus, VacGate/Demonjuice

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. Here’s What It Really Means And Why You Have To Share This With Everyone!!

Imagine being that much of a worthless raging useless retard that you actually believed that “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” was just a naturally occurring and spontaneous phenomenon that came out of nowhere, seemingly with no cause to speak of?

I think we know where S.I.D.S.(Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)comes from now. I know that the anti-vaxx community had been claiming that vaccines were the cause of S.I.D.S. for a while now.

Source: https://www.ournewearthnews.com/2022/06/21/sudden-adult-death-syndrome-heres-what-it-really-means-and-you-have-to-share-this-with-everyone/

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. Here’s What It Really Means And Why You Have To Share This With Everyone!!

By now you have heard of “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome”.

Media Reports “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” While Pfizer’s Own Documents Admit mRNA Vaccines Will Result In Mass Depopulation!!

Now I’m going to tell you what it really means!

Basically it’s like this… they know why people are suddenly dying.  But they can’t tell you the real reason, even if they wanted to be truthful.  It’s because of legal liability.  IF they told you the real reason, it would be a LEGAL ADMISSION OF GUILT, and thus they would be agreeing that they deserve to LOSE IN EVERY SINGLE LIABILITY COURTCASE TO COME.  To basically this is a desperate attempt to keep the sinking ship afloat for a few more moments.

It is inevitable that a connection can be scientifically and legally proven that there’s a connection with the sudden deaths and the you-know-what.

3.  What you need to share with everyone, is that the statistics fulfill the Bradford-Hill Criteria, which can now prove that jab-associated deaths can be easily proven in court.


In 1965, the English statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill proposed a set of nine criteria to provide epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect. (For example, he demonstrated the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.) The list of the criteria is as follows:[1]

  1. Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
  2. Consistency (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
  3. Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[1]
  4. Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
  5. Biological gradient (dose-response relationship): Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.[1]
  6. Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
  7. Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that “… lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations”.
  8. Experiment: “Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence”.
  9. Analogy: The use of analogies or similarities between the observed association and any other associations.


%d bloggers like this: