The term “unavoidably unsafe” comes from a comment to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of the Law of Torts, published by the American Law Institute:

“Unavoidably unsafe products: There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected. Since the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the marketing and the use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”

Liability for the Production and Sale of Vaccines - Vaccine Supply and Innovation - NCBI Bookshelf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216813/

5. I had always understood "civil society" to mean "not the military." The former exists to check the latter. So I was shocked to see the depth of collaboration. For instance, "civil society" groups coordinating with Pentagon officials in an "election tabletop" exercise. Why?

Join: The Twitter Files

17. "LOL! Ok, off the record, what's our working theory here of what happened?" replies Noah Shachtman, current Rolling Stone Editor-in-Chief.

Join: The Twitter Files

Founding member of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore explains in layman's terms why :

a) carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but is actually a nutrient necessary for all lifeforms, and

b) nuclear energy and natural gas is preferable over wind and solar energy.

"The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm."

"I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication."

A very good article from an author who took the trouble to attend the public meetings that U.K. medicines regulator MHRA holds on a cyclical basis. This time she submitted a question & it was called to be asked & answered at the most recent meeting. See article for details.
It’s abundantly clear that the adverse effects being reported post c19 injections are causal, not casual.
Best wishes
Mike


Causality:
My second piece of information throws light on Causality, regarding which the MHRA, especially in response to FoI requests, continually states:
An adverse drug reaction or a fatal outcome does not mean that the vaccine was the cause of SAEs [serious adverse effects] or death.
The WHO accepts the Bradford-Hill Criteria as confirmation of causation if at least five of the criteria are met. These vaccines meet all the criteria. This is confirmed in the presentation Understanding 'Vaccine' Causation by Dr Jessica Rose, Dr Peter McCullough and others.
Dr Rose explains that the WHO uses a ten-criterion list, the Bradford Hill criteria, to prove causality. She goes through all ten criteria and provides evidence accordingly.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/taking-on-the-mhra-part-1

It’s very commonly said by bad actors & by people ignorant about causation analysis that “Correlation does not equal causation”, as if that means “You can disregard MHRA Yellow Card and FDA VAERS reports”.
That’s not at all what the saying means.
It means precisely what it says, that you shouldn’t AUTOMATICALLY assume causation just because there are reports of harms after exposure to these injections.
But you shouldn’t AUTOMATICALLY disregard the possibility of causation, either.
There’s a matching but more or less never used phrase:
“Where there is causation, there will be correlation”.
So what these enormous numbers of reports of injuries and deaths post c19 injections demand is done, by way of follow up, is to explore how strong is the evidence of causation.
There are widely accepted methods for conducting such an analysis, in the form of the Bradford Hill criteria.
These are accepted by WHO as well as by the medicines regulators.
Cont/

If just five of the ten Bradford Hill criteria are met, causality is accepted.

Here’s the kicker. ALL TEN (10) of the Bradford Hill causality criteria are met for the c19 injections in relation to the adverse effects reports.

It’s DEFINITELY causation. Without question, these injections CAUSE the majority of the injuries experienced & occasionally reported.

It’s acknowledged in peer reviewed journal articles that only a small minority, between 1-10%, of adverse events experienced after taking a prescribed medication are reported. This is for a variety of reasons. Often the person doesn’t link the events so they never consider reporting it. Other times they do suspect causation but someone else, such as their family doctor, dismisses such a claim and they give up. Many people believe that side effects only occur soon after exposure to a toxic substance occurs. While it’s true that some kinds of toxicity occur shortly after exposure (such as acute allergic reactions) others, by their nature, can take weeks, months or even years to manifest themselves (such as heart damage, autoimmunity, cancer etc).

Please take a look at the article, both to understand how dreadfully badly served we are currently by MHRA and especially to at least scan these causality criteria. They’re well thought through but they’re not high science. Anyone with reasonable linguistic abilities will be able to follow the examples given.

In closing, the author points out that MHRA knows perfectly well that the gene-based injections have caused tremendous harms, and if they claim not to know this, they will have had to not look at their own data. It’s that blatant.

Of course, they’re not telling the public, because they’ve been captured by those I call the perpetrators. They might be complying with strict orders or they might be enthusiastic supporters of what’s going on.

Please onboard enough information to be able to inform others of the risks & to push back on the lazy “Correlation is not causation” trope.

Best wishes and thanks!
Mike

COUNTER SLOGANS
Of the Resistance

Safe and effective?
UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE

Correlation is not causation?
CAUSATION LEADS TO CORRELATION

Trust the science?
RESEARCH THE SCIENCE

Feel free to add as comments.

@RobinMG

Give this a listen because it will challenge everything you think you know about the history of vaccines.

No vaccine, in history, has vaccinated against anything.

https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/a-beginners-guide-to-vaccines-and-germ-theory

I went back on Jerm Warfare with Jeremy Nell to discuss approaches to take about 15 minute cities.

@RobinMG
@JermWarfare

https://tntradiolive.podbean.com/e/robin-monotti-graziadei-on-jerm-warfare-with-jeremy-nell-27-april-2023/

"Vigilantes" gonna vigilate. 😎