What court case? No details there, but it provides a nice dog whistle for the conspiracy folks, doesn't it? For all we know it's just a routine 'access to information' request through normal channels.
attacking the messenger
Just pointing out he has no special expertise, so you can go to the documents he provides and read them yourself, because you're as qualified as he is.
And when you do you'll see he's ignoring the big picture and falling back on the "if it bleeds it leads" school of journalism in the hopes of making a buck.
You have looked at his links, I assume? And seen that less than 1% needed hospital care, there's no distinction between care for vaccine side-effects and treatment for covid, and there's no indication that anyone died?
It took a year and a half to get "five excel files which likely took the CDC minutes to download and produce," ICAN said in its portion of the Nov. 4 joint status report filed with the court.
File
ICAN-CDC-joint-motion-v-safe.pdf
When you file with a court it usually requires a case.
From the link: "It got them through ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation against the CDC"
The reporter is free to call it litigation if he wants to, but it's a routine process that anyone with the time and money can access. It's not like there's some crusading lawyer out there doing something new.
It's just some journalist trying to earn a paycheque by telling stories that are scarier than they have to be.
Have you looked at his links, or are you just taking his word for it?
The just the news article is coverage of a court case. Is the case not real?
Not sure what attacking the messenger does except to misinform the public by attempting to discredit the reporter somehow.
What court case? No details there, but it provides a nice dog whistle for the conspiracy folks, doesn't it? For all we know it's just a routine 'access to information' request through normal channels.
Just pointing out he has no special expertise, so you can go to the documents he provides and read them yourself, because you're as qualified as he is.
And when you do you'll see he's ignoring the big picture and falling back on the "if it bleeds it leads" school of journalism in the hopes of making a buck.
You have looked at his links, I assume? And seen that less than 1% needed hospital care, there's no distinction between care for vaccine side-effects and treatment for covid, and there's no indication that anyone died?
File ICAN-CDC-joint-motion-v-safe.pdf
When you file with a court it usually requires a case.
From the link: "It got them through ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation against the CDC"
The reporter is free to call it litigation if he wants to, but it's a routine process that anyone with the time and money can access. It's not like there's some crusading lawyer out there doing something new.
It's just some journalist trying to earn a paycheque by telling stories that are scarier than they have to be.
Have you looked at his links, or are you just taking his word for it?