Incomprehensibly tortured prose (or garbled speech) is often a red flag—a sign of either willful obfuscation (as, I suspect, in this case) or bad faith. (My book, The Bush Dyslexicon, is a close study of Dubya’s often comical misstatements as unconscious demonstrations of the latter.)
From Sharyl Attkisson:
Maybe I’m not that smart but I’m also not stupid. There’s obviously a reason for the convoluted and tortured sentence structure that makes it almost impossible to decipher:
Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol- specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.
I’m still not sure what they’re saying.
Overall (in the bigger picture),
data do *not* raise concern (no concern)
that reporting suspected Covid-19 (that reporting suspected cases)
have masked (have hidden)
adverse events (vaccine adverse events)
been detected (not revealed through other means).
This seems to mean, or to imply that:
People who thought they had COVID-19 after vaccination were really just suffering from vaccine side effects that are similar to COVID-19 symptoms.
If so, wouldn’t that have masked the reporting of vaccine side effects because they were misdiagnosed as COVID-19?