>>12550177Just curious anon, because, I don't know, my dumb little brain is telling me this, did you ever bother to compare that to the background incidence rate of that condition?
Idk. Dumb old me just had a thought that maybe, idk, a condition with a background incidence of 23 people per 100k per year might, I don't know, reasonable occur naturally about 4 times in a trial population of 30,000 people which lasted more than a year.
I guess I must be dumb to think that, huh. I guess cherrypicking data and ignoring all statistical analysis really is how things work, as seen in your extremely reliable photo.
Kill yourself you dumbfuck.
