At best they are horribly misusing the language. It's like when they were talking about the presidential election and some clever propagandist wrote "without evidence" and all the media dimwits (they aren't even midwits) thought it sounded good and copied the phrasing. The time proximity of someone dying during strenuous athletics and also being vaccinated is circumstantial evidence. The number of players dropping dead vs. previous years and vs. non-vaccinated players is statistical evidence. Upon investigation one may find conflicting evidence that disproves the hypothesis, but putting the phrase "no evidence" in a headline is transparently deceptive. I don't even feel sorry for people who fall for it.

At best they are horribly misusing the language. It's like when they were talking about the presidential election and some clever propagandist wrote "without evidence" and all the media dimwits (they aren't even midwits) thought it sounded good and copied the phrasing. The time proximity of someone dying during strenuous athletics and also being vaccinated is circumstantial evidence. The number of players dropping dead vs. previous years and vs. non-vaccinated players could be statistical evidence. Upon investigation one may find conflicting evidence that disproves the hypothesis, but putting the phrase "no evidence" in a headline is transparently deceptive. I don't even feel sorry for people who fall for it.