Yes, of course, but you then appeared to query the "unfounded" nature of the claims. I thought you had missed the part where they turned out to be indeed unfounded.
You should assume the strongest interpretation of the comments you reply to, it leads to better conversations and is part of the site's guidelines.
I disagree about the fact that they're unfounded having read the comment I replied to, therefore it follows I do not believe the results of the FDA's investigation are conclusive. I illustrate this with the Hep-B vaccine for which the health-autorities have not found a causal link, yet the legal system implicitly acknowledges one. There's also my personal experience with the Pfizer vaccine of which some side-effects are not being reported, putting into question any scientific conclusion that'd be reached from the incomplete data that is being gathered.
Wait. You quoting the site's guidelines because the poster assumed you were questioning the unfounded claim but now you are stating you disagree with the unfounded claim?
Assuming I'm questioning the unfounded claim is not the issue. I'm quoting the site's guidelines because the poster copied verbatim the message I was responding to. This is either quite snarky or assumes very low reading ability on my part.
In short the exchange was:
A: "The claims are unfounded because the FDA found no causal link."
B: "The claims might not be unfounded because the absence of evidence of a causal link is not sufficient to qualify them as such, as is evident by this legal precedent and my personal experience."
C: "`the FDA found no causal link.`"
I hope this clarifies things, I'm afraid we're getting very meta.
