What we have here is a closed validation loop where the referee is on payroll.
Mutual validation that ain't.
The clinic data and the survey are offered as confirmation of each other, but they share the identical defect - selected populations, parental narratives, no comparison group - and two selected samples agreeing is exactly what selection predicts.
The analyst is not independent. Steve is a major funder of AlterAI, so "AlterAi points out all the flaws in Black's analysis" is a product Steve financed reviewing work he commissioned - a conflict of interest of exactly the type Steve says disqualifies mainstream researchers.
The "objectivity test" tests Agreement, not objectivity.
Steve's stated criterion - an AI passes if it doesn't answer "no" to "do vaccines cause autism?" - guarantees that any model surviving it has been selected on the outcome rather than the evidence.
A source that can't lose is not a source.
AlterAI has never once reported against its user; when asked to evaluate Black's audit, it skipped the decisive items (the forward-only interval question, the recruitment table) and instead recommended Steve write a paper alleging suppression.
The rhetoric is unfalsifiable. "Explain the four features or hide under a rock," "they won't participate because they know they're wrong," predicting critics' silence in advance - any response confirms, and so does any non-response.
The proposed trial would measure conviction, not causation. Recruiting from "100,000 autism parents" assembled through the same belief-filtered channels pre-selects for the hypothesis under investigation, which is why it deserves scrutiny rather than support regardless of which side one expects it to vindicate.
This critical review (and this is the tip of the iceberg) is like shooting ducks in a barrel.
AlterAi is a marketing Ai. It does not present truth - it tells you what you want to hear. It uses confirmation bias to keep users and collect "likes." I've had it entirely make up data sets and lie like a rug. It also lies by omission. It belongs in the trashcan.
An AI that selects for alternative views has the same problem as one that selects for mainstream views: both select on the Conclusion rather than on the evidence, and both will tell their user they were right.
The excerpt from AlterAi is the test: asked to evaluate Black's audit, it did not address the forward-only interval or the recruitment table - instead it recommended Steve write a paper alleging that the medical community suppresses data collection. That's not an alternative analysis; it's the survey's function applied to its own critique.
The check that matters is the one you can apply to any of these outputs: does it cite things that can be pulled and can it lose?
Mainstream sources do over-claim and they also lie; Reardon's timing sentence and the Newsweek pesticide piece were both wrong in the mainstream direction. The asymmetry is not which side an Ai favors but whether it ever reports against its own user. AlterAi never does. It lacks the integrity to do so.
AlterAi is not a real Ai - it is a "yes" man. Like Fox news, it delivers consistent dopamine hits to its addicted users.
So let's look at just one statement in the critique:
"6. The key variable is days since the last pediatrician visit. Vaccine timing is asked only in two late-added items, answered by 19 people and 1 person."
What does this even mean?
Is it 19 + 1 persons = 20 people?
Is there a category "person," multiples of which do not aggregate within category "people?"
Okay, so many of those objections seem reasonable and deserving of being addressed with a point-by-point explanation, but when someone's renting an artificial brain and can't be bothered to use their own, why submit to what is plausibly a Machiavellian attention parasite?
Many of us will consider evidence either way, withholding final judgement on any given point until the priors are clearly delineated and the links in the chains of logic verifiable as having been strongly-forged.
Those of us attempting to do so, are unlikely to be swayed by the carelessness of such a critique as is offered by this Mr. Black. If we are to be convinced that details matter, well..... details must matter, mustn't they?
Unutterably tedious. If the surveys reveal a signal, fine; follow up with further studies and research.
When a critique begins with "Half the sample (239/479) was recruited through anti-vaccine organizations and influencers," a thoughtful person seeks to understand why that is troublesome, when the alternative excludes those who would, by definition, have been recruited through other means.
If we will not credulously accept one set of priors, we will not credulously accept an opposing set of priors.
That "critique" is pure contrarianism, and that's just fine, but it informs nothing and does not appear to have been reviewed for accuracy or clarity. Reading it is a waste of time.
My own occupation has serious human safety-related aspects, Mr. Kirsch, and if I were to use phraseology such as "19 people and 1 person" in one of my reports, I'd find myself demoted or unemployed quite promptly.
That "analysis" fits the increasingly-recognizable pattern of AI-generated trolling.
I appreciate what you've been doing and my expectation of those presenting arguments that you are failing to discover signals amidst the noise, signals that are worthy of deep investigation, is that such critics will present coherent arguments.
Cheap shots, trolling, AI slop and ad hominem are not arguments.
Dr Black's professional bio lists his primary practice site to be the University of British Columbia (UBC).
Both Sanofi and GSK are major donors to UBC.
Both Sanofi and GSK are major players in the vaccine industry.
Although Dr Black may not have any personal funding conflicts of interest, the people that sign his paychecks and provide funding for his research (that being UBC) have disqualifying funding conflicts of interest.
Since Dr Black pay and research funding would be effected if he took a professional position against the prevailing safe and effective vaccine narrative, he should just stay on the sideline and cash his bigpharma subsidized checks.
BTW, how much bipharma funding is attached to Steve's research???
He cant. Can you imagine the professional and admistrative backlash he would receive? He is a useful idiot to the institution... not patients... the institution he serves
I would like to share your article with friends but I lost 3 friends because I was not vaccinated.My wife and I would not take that vaccine.I followed the pandemic from the beginning and there were too many red flags.Our families are ok.What is the agenda of this Dr. black .Was he bought by big Pharma. How can you turn a blind eye to the health of children.Maybe he is just a damn coward. Great work as usual Steve..Semper FI. God Bless
Measles is a nasty virus that can lead to dehydration, pneumonia and encephalitis. At the turn of the mllenium, the WHO was blaming measles for about a million annual deaths. That number is fraction of what it used to be but should be approaching zero.
Rubella is a mild illnesses, but can have devastating effects on the fetus.
And the flu kills around 400k or more people a year and you see how effective those vaccines are. I had measles. Had to stay in my darkened bedroom for two weeks. Didn't feel sick but there I had to stay.
That influenza number seems like the global mortality or maybe the H1N1 mortality back in 1918 and 1919.. The US typically has 30 thousand influenza deaths in an average year but a bad year can approach 100 thousand fatalities. Those unfortunate folks in the preantibiotic era had a terrible time with post viral pneumonia. They had many deaths from TB and bacterial meningitis was 100% fatal.
My uncle was born in 1929 . Before he passed, l would ask him about the ear infections that kept him indoors instead of the hills with the goats.
He said that they would pour rubbing alcohol into his ears any time they drained. OUCH !!!
Its about time for new vaccines without the use fetal tissue....im looking at you MMR, VARIVAX and HepA. ( Ive considered you tainted since l learned your fetal cell secret )
If people ate the right foods...they would not have the problems they have, but they don't want to think that the foods that they love are causing their health problems. Most people are food addicts...My own daughter is one of them. I went over 20 years without a sniffle, ,until I started putting dairy in my coffee. I wound up very sick in bed for weeks. I stopped using any dairy..and haven't had any colds, coughs ,or sore throat for 29 years. Dairy products create excess mucous. I learn from my own experiences. .In 1976, I went to a nutritional doctor who told me to eat a lot of dairy because I was expecting a baby and intending to nurse...In three months I had a lemon sized rapidly growing vaginal tumor. I got rid of it by stopping the dairy...and only eating raw fruit and vegetables...and in less than three months the tumor disappeared. Excess protein was the cause. It fed the growth of the tumor. One doesn't need to use vaccines to end problems...One has to learn to eliminate the causes. Using medical products only adds fuel to the fire.
How about with the other poisons in them too, or contaminated bits and pieces of things. Or better yet let's let herd immunity have a place at the table again.
I saw the natural immunity era where we had 28000 cases of invasive Haemophilus type B disease, 5000 cases of pneomococcal meningitis and 5000 cases of meningococca menngitis. We did lumbar puntures ( spinal taps) quite frequently back in the day. Im glad to say that most med students havent even seen that procedure let alone perform one.
That was a right of passage on pediatric rotations back in the day.
I live in a county of around 200 thousand people. When l started my practice is 1993 , there were more than 80 pediatric beds among the 3 hospitals. At the start of the pandemic, the peds beds were 5.
There are no peds beds in my county.
Children who need a stat appendectomy need a helicopter to the nearest childrens hospital or a 1 hour ambulance drive. Any pedd admissions from the ER of the last remaining hospital have to be sent to a neighboring county for admission.
I sure dont miss the mayhem in January when those peds units were full.
What we have here is a closed validation loop where the referee is on payroll.
Mutual validation that ain't.
The clinic data and the survey are offered as confirmation of each other, but they share the identical defect - selected populations, parental narratives, no comparison group - and two selected samples agreeing is exactly what selection predicts.
The analyst is not independent. Steve is a major funder of AlterAI, so "AlterAi points out all the flaws in Black's analysis" is a product Steve financed reviewing work he commissioned - a conflict of interest of exactly the type Steve says disqualifies mainstream researchers.
The "objectivity test" tests Agreement, not objectivity.
Steve's stated criterion - an AI passes if it doesn't answer "no" to "do vaccines cause autism?" - guarantees that any model surviving it has been selected on the outcome rather than the evidence.
A source that can't lose is not a source.
AlterAI has never once reported against its user; when asked to evaluate Black's audit, it skipped the decisive items (the forward-only interval question, the recruitment table) and instead recommended Steve write a paper alleging suppression.
The rhetoric is unfalsifiable. "Explain the four features or hide under a rock," "they won't participate because they know they're wrong," predicting critics' silence in advance - any response confirms, and so does any non-response.
The proposed trial would measure conviction, not causation. Recruiting from "100,000 autism parents" assembled through the same belief-filtered channels pre-selects for the hypothesis under investigation, which is why it deserves scrutiny rather than support regardless of which side one expects it to vindicate.
This critical review (and this is the tip of the iceberg) is like shooting ducks in a barrel.
AlterAi is a marketing Ai. It does not present truth - it tells you what you want to hear. It uses confirmation bias to keep users and collect "likes." I've had it entirely make up data sets and lie like a rug. It also lies by omission. It belongs in the trashcan.
An AI that selects for alternative views has the same problem as one that selects for mainstream views: both select on the Conclusion rather than on the evidence, and both will tell their user they were right.
The excerpt from AlterAi is the test: asked to evaluate Black's audit, it did not address the forward-only interval or the recruitment table - instead it recommended Steve write a paper alleging that the medical community suppresses data collection. That's not an alternative analysis; it's the survey's function applied to its own critique.
The check that matters is the one you can apply to any of these outputs: does it cite things that can be pulled and can it lose?
Mainstream sources do over-claim and they also lie; Reardon's timing sentence and the Newsweek pesticide piece were both wrong in the mainstream direction. The asymmetry is not which side an Ai favors but whether it ever reports against its own user. AlterAi never does. It lacks the integrity to do so.
AlterAi is not a real Ai - it is a "yes" man. Like Fox news, it delivers consistent dopamine hits to its addicted users.
All of this AI slop is getting tiresome.
So let's look at just one statement in the critique:
"6. The key variable is days since the last pediatrician visit. Vaccine timing is asked only in two late-added items, answered by 19 people and 1 person."
What does this even mean?
Is it 19 + 1 persons = 20 people?
Is there a category "person," multiples of which do not aggregate within category "people?"
Okay, so many of those objections seem reasonable and deserving of being addressed with a point-by-point explanation, but when someone's renting an artificial brain and can't be bothered to use their own, why submit to what is plausibly a Machiavellian attention parasite?
Many of us will consider evidence either way, withholding final judgement on any given point until the priors are clearly delineated and the links in the chains of logic verifiable as having been strongly-forged.
Those of us attempting to do so, are unlikely to be swayed by the carelessness of such a critique as is offered by this Mr. Black. If we are to be convinced that details matter, well..... details must matter, mustn't they?
Unutterably tedious. If the surveys reveal a signal, fine; follow up with further studies and research.
When a critique begins with "Half the sample (239/479) was recruited through anti-vaccine organizations and influencers," a thoughtful person seeks to understand why that is troublesome, when the alternative excludes those who would, by definition, have been recruited through other means.
If we will not credulously accept one set of priors, we will not credulously accept an opposing set of priors.
That "critique" is pure contrarianism, and that's just fine, but it informs nothing and does not appear to have been reviewed for accuracy or clarity. Reading it is a waste of time.
What it means is that Tyler’s Analysis is very inaccurate
My own occupation has serious human safety-related aspects, Mr. Kirsch, and if I were to use phraseology such as "19 people and 1 person" in one of my reports, I'd find myself demoted or unemployed quite promptly.
That "analysis" fits the increasingly-recognizable pattern of AI-generated trolling.
I appreciate what you've been doing and my expectation of those presenting arguments that you are failing to discover signals amidst the noise, signals that are worthy of deep investigation, is that such critics will present coherent arguments.
Cheap shots, trolling, AI slop and ad hominem are not arguments.
Glad to see this post. Thank you, Steve.
AI can expose the fraudsters! That is why they want to control AI to prevent the truth from being known!
Dr Black's professional bio lists his primary practice site to be the University of British Columbia (UBC).
Both Sanofi and GSK are major donors to UBC.
Both Sanofi and GSK are major players in the vaccine industry.
Although Dr Black may not have any personal funding conflicts of interest, the people that sign his paychecks and provide funding for his research (that being UBC) have disqualifying funding conflicts of interest.
Since Dr Black pay and research funding would be effected if he took a professional position against the prevailing safe and effective vaccine narrative, he should just stay on the sideline and cash his bigpharma subsidized checks.
BTW, how much bipharma funding is attached to Steve's research???
Well, Steve, what say you?
None of the pharma companies have offered to sponsor my newsletter
I prefer to argue with Dr. Black on the merits
He is all in. He aint coming back.
Dont punch down professionally by dealing with a conflict of interest conflicted instuitional physician
https://cpa.ca/pandemic-disinformation-suicide-and-science-up-first-with-dr-tyler-black/
He cant. Can you imagine the professional and admistrative backlash he would receive? He is a useful idiot to the institution... not patients... the institution he serves
PROGENITER Project: UBC project that parners with GSK.
The project is a plandemic... i mean pandemic prepardness project
Dr Black needs to just go away
He is a hack protecting his own interests... aka he wont shit where he eats
I would like to share your article with friends but I lost 3 friends because I was not vaccinated.My wife and I would not take that vaccine.I followed the pandemic from the beginning and there were too many red flags.Our families are ok.What is the agenda of this Dr. black .Was he bought by big Pharma. How can you turn a blind eye to the health of children.Maybe he is just a damn coward. Great work as usual Steve..Semper FI. God Bless
I think his intentions are good. He’s like your friends. People who think the vaccines are safe think I’m a bad person.
I am really liking your work Steve! Keep at it!
Did you hear back from Dr Black?
Not yet
I'd be mighty susprised if that ever happens.
Um, first of all he is a psycho doc and second, his face looks deformed. I will pass on anything he has to say.
Psychiatrists are the biggest group of charlatans in the group.
BOOM SHAKALAKA!
Hmm. Slovenly, unshaven, and ill-fittingly suited for the job. Who says you can't judge a book by its cover?
If you search the wikipedia pages of the physicians like Dr Mccullough, they still classify him as a peddler of misinformation
Hey MW,
Measles is a nasty virus that can lead to dehydration, pneumonia and encephalitis. At the turn of the mllenium, the WHO was blaming measles for about a million annual deaths. That number is fraction of what it used to be but should be approaching zero.
Rubella is a mild illnesses, but can have devastating effects on the fetus.
Mumps is the least concerning of the 3 viruses
And the flu kills around 400k or more people a year and you see how effective those vaccines are. I had measles. Had to stay in my darkened bedroom for two weeks. Didn't feel sick but there I had to stay.
That influenza number seems like the global mortality or maybe the H1N1 mortality back in 1918 and 1919.. The US typically has 30 thousand influenza deaths in an average year but a bad year can approach 100 thousand fatalities. Those unfortunate folks in the preantibiotic era had a terrible time with post viral pneumonia. They had many deaths from TB and bacterial meningitis was 100% fatal.
My uncle was born in 1929 . Before he passed, l would ask him about the ear infections that kept him indoors instead of the hills with the goats.
He said that they would pour rubbing alcohol into his ears any time they drained. OUCH !!!
You’d think his online presence would be damaging to his practice. Maybe his practice is the side hustle.
Hustle being the operative word.
Guilt or he’s been paid by the pharmaceutical companies.
See my post... youre on the right path
Its about time for new vaccines without the use fetal tissue....im looking at you MMR, VARIVAX and HepA. ( Ive considered you tainted since l learned your fetal cell secret )
If people ate the right foods...they would not have the problems they have, but they don't want to think that the foods that they love are causing their health problems. Most people are food addicts...My own daughter is one of them. I went over 20 years without a sniffle, ,until I started putting dairy in my coffee. I wound up very sick in bed for weeks. I stopped using any dairy..and haven't had any colds, coughs ,or sore throat for 29 years. Dairy products create excess mucous. I learn from my own experiences. .In 1976, I went to a nutritional doctor who told me to eat a lot of dairy because I was expecting a baby and intending to nurse...In three months I had a lemon sized rapidly growing vaginal tumor. I got rid of it by stopping the dairy...and only eating raw fruit and vegetables...and in less than three months the tumor disappeared. Excess protein was the cause. It fed the growth of the tumor. One doesn't need to use vaccines to end problems...One has to learn to eliminate the causes. Using medical products only adds fuel to the fire.
and add to that removing fetal bovine serum.
How about with the other poisons in them too, or contaminated bits and pieces of things. Or better yet let's let herd immunity have a place at the table again.
Thanks for the question Kaycee.
I saw the natural immunity era where we had 28000 cases of invasive Haemophilus type B disease, 5000 cases of pneomococcal meningitis and 5000 cases of meningococca menngitis. We did lumbar puntures ( spinal taps) quite frequently back in the day. Im glad to say that most med students havent even seen that procedure let alone perform one.
That was a right of passage on pediatric rotations back in the day.
I live in a county of around 200 thousand people. When l started my practice is 1993 , there were more than 80 pediatric beds among the 3 hospitals. At the start of the pandemic, the peds beds were 5.
There are no peds beds in my county.
Children who need a stat appendectomy need a helicopter to the nearest childrens hospital or a 1 hour ambulance drive. Any pedd admissions from the ER of the last remaining hospital have to be sent to a neighboring county for admission.
I sure dont miss the mayhem in January when those peds units were full.
For some reason mumps, rubella, measles, & chickenpox weren't a big deal in the 1960s.
They became a big deal when pharma wanted to make money.
Being sick actually helps kids build their immune systems.
Never heard of anyone dying of those routine childhood diseases.
The chickenpox vaccine does spread, including shingles, since 1994.
BOOM #2 FOR THE DAY!