4 ms·

So we have to disprove the claims of any random blog?

zmgsabst 4y ago
When that blog makes a claim based on official death data, yes. That’s how science works: - Person A makes claim X - Person A then points to data consistent with that claim X and which seems to contradict claim Y - Person B who supports claim Y needs to explain how that data doesn’t contradict claim Y In this case: Claim X — COVID vaccines were not safe Claim Y — COVID vaccines are safe
- soared 4y ago
  That author just put a line on a time series graph and said the event that occurred somewhere near that line is the cause of the change. Thats not a claim based on official data, thats not even a valid attempt at analysis. Let me plot a time series of temperature by day. Now I'll draw a line where we see firework sales increase massively. Then after that point, temperature increases consistently. Science, official data, etc. No lies here. But now lets claim.... shooting off fireworks increases the temperature of the Earth causing the temperature to rise until the fall/winter. Now you need to expend resources disproving me.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    You used that example, but it’s not accurate: If you excluded the reverse, that temperature caused the spike (as they did by showing the COVID curve didn’t account for the excess deaths), then that would be an argument worth refuting.
throwaway5752 4y ago
No, please let's not raise the idea that metatron.substack.com's non-expert interpretation of data is a waste of valuable expert time! Wait, I should look at the author's (Joel Smalley) self-described qualifications before getting snarky: Pro bono COVID data analysis for legal challenges and independent media seeking the truth (e.g. Dr Tess Lawrie's letter to the MHRA - https://bit.ly/3FZxpU7 https://bit.ly/3FZxpU7 and Robert Kennedy's book - https://amzn.to/3nMd2mK https://amzn.to/3nMd2mK), shared publicly "for the greater good". https://substack.com/profile/30382446-joel-smalley https://substack.com/profile/30382446-joel-smalley Yes, it is a waste of time. A reasonable presumption is that people are morons or liars unless shown otherwise.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  I got it: you can only make ad hominems, not address facts about Australia’s death numbers. > A reasonable presumption is that people are morons or liars unless shown otherwise. Is that confirmed when the only argument those people offer is ad hominems?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

When that blog makes a claim based on official death data, yes. That’s how science works: - Person A makes claim X - Person A then points to data consistent with that claim X and which seems to contradict claim Y - Person B who supports claim Y needs to explain how that data doesn’t contradict claim Y In this case: Claim X — COVID vaccines were not safe Claim Y — COVID vaccines are safe

soared 4y ago
That author just put a line on a time series graph and said the event that occurred somewhere near that line is the cause of the change. Thats not a claim based on official data, thats not even a valid attempt at analysis. Let me plot a time series of temperature by day. Now I'll draw a line where we see firework sales increase massively. Then after that point, temperature increases consistently. Science, official data, etc. No lies here. But now lets claim.... shooting off fireworks increases the temperature of the Earth causing the temperature to rise until the fall/winter. Now you need to expend resources disproving me.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  You used that example, but it’s not accurate: If you excluded the reverse, that temperature caused the spike (as they did by showing the COVID curve didn’t account for the excess deaths), then that would be an argument worth refuting.

throwaway5752 4y ago

No, please let's not raise the idea that metatron.substack.com's non-expert interpretation of data is a waste of valuable expert time! Wait, I should look at the author's (Joel Smalley) self-described qualifications before getting snarky: Pro bono COVID data analysis for legal challenges and independent media seeking the truth (e.g. Dr Tess Lawrie's letter to the MHRA - https://bit.ly/3FZxpU7 https://bit.ly/3FZxpU7 and Robert Kennedy's book - https://amzn.to/3nMd2mK https://amzn.to/3nMd2mK), shared publicly "for the greater good". https://substack.com/profile/30382446-joel-smalley https://substack.com/profile/30382446-joel-smalley Yes, it is a waste of time. A reasonable presumption is that people are morons or liars unless shown otherwise.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zmgsabst 4y ago
I got it: you can only make ad hominems, not address facts about Australia’s death numbers. > A reasonable presumption is that people are morons or liars unless shown otherwise. Is that confirmed when the only argument those people offer is ad hominems?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]