Slowly slowly
Bit by bit
In our recent series on enablers, scare agencies and other governmental branches we have exposed some of the most ridiculous data discrepancies (think of the Vaxzevria files) or nonsensical statements reported in our source materials.
Good examples of the latter are the enablers’ EXPERT WORKING GROUP statements that Covid vaccines were effective or passed muster because they elicited an antibody response in recipients and next paragraph stating that no one quite knows if anybody responses are correlates of protection.
The second part is true and has been a known fact for decades, undermining the house of cards of the first part of the statement.
In the rare cases in which the MSM takes an interest they get evasive answers. A reporter asked the enablers the source of five fold discrepancy in Vaxzevria reactions between Yellow Card System and the FOI answer provided to Trust the Evidence. The answer was:
Of course that was weeks ago and we have severe doubts that any such review took place.
The game of evasion continues.
Then we have the strident conflicts of interest of those who were supposed to protect us. The EWG had one member who was involved in the development of Vaxzevria and another one who made the decision to fund its development.
We provide proof of our statements and analyses, we are not New York Times bloggers who write and pontificate on the basis of little knowledge of the subject matter at hand, or demented modellers whose work misled the world.
We show our reasoning, slowly slowly, trying to explain and get readers to think, remember, contribute, argue. If we make mistakes like any other members of our race, we own up to them.
One thing we try never to do is jump to conclusions. Remember: our credo is EBM.
Take excess mortality in the early part of the decade. Some of you have realised that we are slowly providing a number of population based explanations, such as lymphopenia and RV HAIs. But excess mortality is complex, the data are poor and so we proceed cautiously.
If we were to announce that we had worked out the causes of excess mortality we would lose much of the credibility that took us some 60 years to build.
We are not lenient to institutions and we do not go over the dark side because we try to be as fair as possible, despite being horrified by some of our findings and not being Darth Vader.
We analyse, we show and in the end we should be able to close down the unlikely causes of excess mortality such as an act of God or the intervention of Ming the Merciless.
So stay with us as we stay focussed on certain issues showing what the most likely explanations are and by converse the unlikely ones.
Science is a journey towards some answers, often provisional, always contingent and probabilistic. If you “know” you are not a scientist.
This post was written by two old geezers who would like to own a light sabre.
WHAT IS MHRA'S CONNECTION WITH HANNAH ARENDT'S WRITINGS ON TOTALITARIANISM?
Hannah Arendt's central argument in The Origins of Totalitarianism is that the survival of totalitarian rule depends on undermining objective truth and replacing it with a fabricated reality.
TTE is doing sterling work in exposing what appears to be the MHRA's consistent attempts to undermine objective truth and replace it with a fabricated reality.
Keep digging Carl and Tom. Your readers are grateful for your service to humanity.
How much has it cost in time and money (for FOIAs) to get the data you have? That is a rhetorical question, we have an inkling of the time and effort you have put into this work. It is a scandal that the organisations we pay for withhold or delay giving data to anyone with an interest.