An internal FDA memo claims that COVID-19 vaccines caused at least ten child deaths and suggests sweeping regulatory reform may be necessary. In this episode, I’m not debating vaccine policy—I’m applying LSAT Logical Reasoning tools to the structure of the argument itself.

We examine selective skepticism, necessary assumptions, burden of proof, and scope shifts. When does incomplete data invalidate a conclusion—and when is it used to support one? If flawed denominators undermine infection studies, can passive reporting systems simultaneously justify strong causal claims?

This is a clean logic breakdown of a high-stakes argument. No politics. Just structure.