People who run from debate challenges aren’t scientists
I had a nice 1 hour chat with William M. Briggs, a well known statistician. He did not find a safety signal for the elderly in the New Zealand data. His approach was fine, but he missed the signal
In part I, we talked about whether scientists should only settle differences of opinion in writing or in the peer reviewed literature.
Briggs says there is absolutely nothing wrong with real-time dialog, saying our conversation was a perfect example.
We also debunked each of the 5 critiques raised by Dr. Jonathan Laxton in this tweet:
It has been clearly demonstrated, Steve:
1) HVE
2) No unvax control
3) Initial mort was lower than baseline- increase, which was returned to baseline
4) No accounting for changed in vax dose pool
5) data violated patients privacy— Jonathan Laxton MD, FRCPC 🐈🐱🐈⬛ (@dr_jon_l) December 7, 2023
In part II, we talked through whether Briggs critiqued my analysis (he admitted he never looked at it) and his triangle plot analysis technique.
In part III (not yet filmed), we’ll go into more detail and I’ll show why Briggs’ was not failed to spot the safety signal that is absolutely there.
Here are the links for the first 2 videos:
Summary
Real scientists don’t run from debate challenges.
Laxton’s attempts to debunk my analysis fall flat.
Brigg’s triangle plots are an innovative way to visualize the death data, but whether this is strong evidence that the vaccines are safe or unsafe will be a topic of part III
Spoiler alert: you can see the safety problems in the triangle plots if you age-stratify them, which Briggs never did.
Bottom line:
- I offered to take down the data if HNZ showed me an analysis showing the published data shows the vaccines are safe. They did not reply.
- The triangle plots make it too hard to see the problem. Instead, plot the raw data in deaths since a vaccine dose. The slope is supposed to go down. In all 5 countries that we have data on, it goes up. Nobody can explain that.
- No recognized epidemiologist (including from HNZ) has published a detailed analysis of the HNZ data showing no excess deaths were caused by the vaccine (or even attempting to quantify the level)
- I held a space on X open to all comers who wanted to shoot down my analysis. No one pointed out any errors in the data, the analysis methodology, the tools, or the conclusions except Drew Comments who said it was impossible for the vaccines to kill anyone. Many others related person experiences that were statistically impossible if the vaccines were safe.
See more here substack.com
Some bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Greg Spinolae
| #
Real scientists also NEVER use the terms “Settled Science” or “THE Science”. Real scientists recognise that “science” is a CONTINUOUS DEBATE between competing THEORIES each aimed at postulating a closer APPROXIMATION to “reality” than any previous approximation. Real scientists continuously gather evidence and analyse evidence that might contribute to ANY SIDE of the debate that enhances a better approximation to reality.
FAKE scientists, AKA “Charlatans”, pursue and tout a pre-assumed agenda (usually funded by POLITICIANS & PARASITES), selectively touting ANY material (including the OPINIONS of their funding sources) regardless ofbits veracity.
Thankfully we have sites like PSI providing REAL Science. Thank you, Steve, for your extraordinary contributions to REAL Science.
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
I have no idea why or how the comment ↑↑↑↑ got posted twice.㋛
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Greg,
I have had the same problem. Maybe someone at PSI could explain what we are doing wrong.
Moving on, I disagree with “Real scientists recognise that “science” is a CONTINUOUS DEBATE between competing THEORIES” and agree with “Real scientists continuously gather evidence and analyze evidence”.
For when there are two differing opinions it is that no evidence has been observed which refutes one or the other. A case to illustrate this is that Einstein proposed a theory (idea) that gravity could bend light. And he calculated how much the light of a distant star would be bent as it passed near the sun . For he knew that astronomers had observed that the earth’s atmosphere bent light via the phenomenon of refraction. So I propose that he reasoned that the sun must also have an atmosphere.and calculated how much this assumed solar atmosphere should refract a distant star’s light aa it passed near the sun. .And astronomer’s measurements confirmed Einstein’s prediction.
However, two quotes of Einstein are “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”and “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” So I assume that Einstein died still questioning if gravity bent light.
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
I don’t either but not to worry, I will delete the newer one.
Administrator SUNMOD
Reply