Yet Another Flawed "Fact Check" on the NZ Data

They can't get their facts straight. They never bother to check the hand-waving arguments that they get if they match the narrative.

Really? News to me. You be the judge.

Executive summary

Another day, another flawed fact check. We: A Novel Zamyatin, Yevgeny Best Price: $2.82 Buy New $11.26 (as of 09:47 UTC - Details)

This one comes with a bonus about Professor Jeffrey Morris. Morris told the reporter that it is OK to download and analyze the New Zealand data, but not OK to talk about it.

I thought I had heard it all, but that’s a new one!

OK, so if no honest scientist is allowed to talk about this data, then how the heck can the fact checker say my analysis is flawed??

A head scratcher for sure!!!

So let’s refute the fact check first, then we’ll have some fun with Professor Morris for dessert.

The claims of the fact check

The fact check claims that the reason mortality rises after the shot is because the shots were given when deaths were at a deficit and so death rates were rising.

This is complete bullshit. What are these people smoking??? I wish I knew!

Deaths fall every August like clockwork in New Zealand:

So I looked at people who got the shot in August, 2021:

x-axis is the number of days since the shot. y-axis is the number of deaths in the time period.

The death rate climbed 43% when it should have gone down by 22%.

Don’t need a calculator on that one.

So this “fact check” relies on a hand-waving argument with no evidentiary support. Are you surprised? These people never bother to check what they are told. They just eat it up hook, line, and sinker.

So now you know why I can’t find anyone qualified to analyze data of this type to challenge me one-on-one on the data: this data is DEVASTATING. That was just one small example.

Who is qualified to analyze this data?

Apparently very few people know how to do this right.

I see very lame attempts to analyze this data from lots of people.

There’s a common thread: each person rolls their own method!!!! Have you noticed? Each says he’s the expert, yet each has a different method.

WTF!?!? Come on. There are known right ways to analyze this data including:

  1. cohort time-series
  2. plotting time between each shot and death (age stratifying for extra credit)
  3. doing triangle plots of all the deaths using numbers (not dots)

A lot of people throw these proven methods to the wind. Or they execute them carelessly like William Briggs did with his triangle plots.

Only a few get them right and can crunch the data and interpret the results correctly. But these analyses aren’t out yet because they take time because the people doing them are careful.

One of the reasons this is hard is that nobody has ever seen data like this before. It’s always kept hidden. And the people with access to the data as part of their day job are told not to find any safety signals. So it is a lost art apparently.

Anyone who claims they are an expert in data analysis tells you you can’t analyze this data and find a signal is either a fool or is gaslighting you.

To date, I haven’t been impressed yet with any of the analyses that have been published by third parties, but Clare Craig is coming out with an analysis soon that I think I’ll like.

Read the Whole Article