risk of developing cancer. Experts say there's no evidence of it. So that means it's true, right? It's true that there's no correlation because there's no evidence of it. There's also no evidence that the 2020 election was rigged because no courts have found it to be true. Yeah, no court found any rigging in 2020, and also there's no evidence that the shots cause cancer.

Do you see the trick, everybody? The trick: "no evidence" is really different from saying it doesn't happen. Do you see that? No evidence means we don't know. No evidence means we don't know. Here's what it didn't say: many controlled, high-quality studies have been performed and they've determined there's no signal for extra cancer. Now that would be a good answer, wouldn't it? Multiple repeated gold standard randomized control tests, and every time we do the test we just keep repeating this test and the last five times we didn't find a signal at all. And by the way, the tests were all funded by independent people, not pharma companies. Now that would mean something, wouldn't it?

But if you tell me that there's no evidence, do you know what my first inclination is? Is there no evidence because nobody funded an expensive trial to look for it? Whose job would it be to fund the trial to look for the cancer? I don't know. And if somebody did fund a trial and it didn't find any cancer, wouldn't you ask them questions about who funded the trial? Because it sounds like something Big Pharma might do. Except I think Big Pharma just doesn't bother doing the long-term studies because they don't have to.

There was a time when I believed that the people who made the vaccinations would track people's health over time to make sure that not only was it safe the first year they got it but it would remain safe for you know 10, 20 years. That's what I thought. You know that doesn't happen, right? I'm pretty sure nobody's checking after a certain amount of time. Like if you didn't die in the first year or they didn't see any extra deaths in any whatever study they did, they don't really follow up, do they? Does anybody know the answer to that? But I'm pretty sure there's no follow-up. You just assume that there is, like me. You assume that, well, that's the most natural thing. You would just track a bunch of people who took it, just track them every year, ask them what their situation is compared to the norm. And no, no, I don't believe that happens.

So do we believe the Japanese study that found a strong correlation? I don't. I don't believe it at all. No, I'm not saying it's wrong and I'm not saying that the shots are completely safe. I wouldn't know. I'm just saying that this is like having no information at all. So the fact check is completely worthless. This was a month ago. Completely worthless because it said no evidence. No evidence is completely different from saying yeah, we checked it and it's not there. No evidence means we didn't check, right? I'm not wrong abo