^^^ As you said earlier, "Its not about medicine, its about integrity. As a person in a role of research, you have moral and legal obligations to accurately represent your findings."
Note that the word "indistinguishable" is used with regard to the rash after vaccination. So, if it is indistinguishable, it might as well be measles. If they have to use PCR machines to tell the difference, why would anyone want to get vaccinated against something they are going to get the same symptoms of? If the reash is really different, then why use the word "indistinguishable?"
Let's get the safety figured out ahead of time, before we start administering the vaccines. Since the safety has not been figured out, the moral and legal obligatio0ns have not been carried out.
Is the rash infectious? Will the rash cause pneumonia or death? Indistinguishable means going into a doctor and them saying, hey it looks like you have the measles. Not that you have the measles and will suffer all of the effects.
I've gotten fevers from flu vaccines before, but had it been the flu I would have been hospitalized due to (minor) preexisting conditions. I don't think you can make a sound argument that a 5% chance of a rash or fever (in the measles case) is the same as a rather deadly disease.
Indistinguishable means just
that. If the doctor can't tell without using a PCR machine, why would he and the medical be propagandizing the people into the idea that vaccines are good, or safe?
Since safety isn't known to exist, because the doctors are admitting that they can't tell without a PCR machine, and essentially nobody uses a PCR machine, what in the world is happening regarding safety? And this is only instant safety... right at the time of the shots. So how can they tell about the dangerous implications 20 or 30 years down the road, if they can't even tell about the safety right on the spot?
For example. All kinds of complex math is used to suggest that Big Bang might be real. But included is the simple math of 1+1=2, and 2*3=6... and all the rest of the simple math. Why? Because the simple math upholds the complex math. Yet, the BB focus isn't on the simple math that upholds it all. Rather, the focus is on the complex math that is producing BB results. Everybody
who thinks about it (which most average victims don't) automatically understands that the simple math is part of the equation.
The focus of the study may not have been the simple idea of indistinguishability. Rather, the focus might have been the infectiousness. But no matter what the focus was, the focus doesn't dismiss the things that uphold it. If it did, the whole focus would disappear.
All that
Natural News was doing was showing
other points written right into the study report. It seems to me that the idea of safety, and the idea of the medical not being able to distinguish between stuff they inject into you, and stuff that happens as the result of whatever they inject, should be of paramount importance. But they say that they don't know when they use the word
indistinguishable.That is criminal. What is criminal? To say that it is safe, yet to admit that they can't tell the difference, and especially when they try to hide aspects of it - like you do - by saying that
that wasn't the focus.