Hi Steve I see you have updated your article with another misrepresentation, so I will clarify.
The poster who you have quoted was suspended for 24 hours for misrepresenting the article and making personal accusations.
After 5 posts it was clear that the poster was there as a chaos agent and refused to read the article on which he was commenting. The final comment for which he received a 24 hour lock ("ban" in substack language) was:
"Yes I did, and according to my understanding of statistical analysis, Steve Kirsch's analysis, circumvented that possibility. If NZ had a sudden miraculous spike (no pun intended) in old people which would be an outlier in the Western world, so be it. But the data is the data isn't it? It seems to me that you are trying to prove a negative with a double negative? Let's first accept that the data shows a statistically significant excess death figure then work backwards. You are doing the opposite. And you seem also to believe that a 10% rate of excess deaths is insignificant compared to a 20% rate (which actually, according to the OECD average ofr Australia over the 2022/23 period was NOT the case). Perhaps if one of those 10% excess deaths was a member of your family, you might feel differently?"
The response was (following an number of politely answered responses) "What on earth are you talking about? The data shows a lower death rate. If you can't understand the content of the post we are happy to help you but when you completely misinterpret it because somebody told you to do so you will just get banned. I'll give you a 24 hours ban in order to give you time to read the article properly and come back with a rational argument instead of that."
After all the work I and others have done highlighting the dangers of mRNA therapy vaccines and the frauds behind them it is both disturbing and eye opening that posts are misrepresented in this fashion.
The post is still up at the below link but I do now intend to ban the user from the substack.
Hi Steve I see you have updated your article with another misrepresentation, so I will clarify.
The poster who you have quoted was suspended for 24 hours for misrepresenting the article and making personal accusations.
After 5 posts it was clear that the poster was there as a chaos agent and refused to read the article on which he was commenting. The final comment for which he received a 24 hour lock ("ban" in substack language) was:
"Yes I did, and according to my understanding of statistical analysis, Steve Kirsch's analysis, circumvented that possibility. If NZ had a sudden miraculous spike (no pun intended) in old people which would be an outlier in the Western world, so be it. But the data is the data isn't it? It seems to me that you are trying to prove a negative with a double negative? Let's first accept that the data shows a statistically significant excess death figure then work backwards. You are doing the opposite. And you seem also to believe that a 10% rate of excess deaths is insignificant compared to a 20% rate (which actually, according to the OECD average ofr Australia over the 2022/23 period was NOT the case). Perhaps if one of those 10% excess deaths was a member of your family, you might feel differently?"
The response was (following an number of politely answered responses) "What on earth are you talking about? The data shows a lower death rate. If you can't understand the content of the post we are happy to help you but when you completely misinterpret it because somebody told you to do so you will just get banned. I'll give you a 24 hours ban in order to give you time to read the article properly and come back with a rational argument instead of that."
After all the work I and others have done highlighting the dangers of mRNA therapy vaccines and the frauds behind them it is both disturbing and eye opening that posts are misrepresented in this fashion.
The post is still up at the below link but I do now intend to ban the user from the substack.
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/the-new-zealand-whistleblower-data/comment/46141219