Executive summary
I’ve been engaged in doing autism surveys for several months now.
Dr. Tyler Black took a swing at my latest survey writing a scathing critique of my latest exploratory surveys.
But he doesn’t seem to understand the basics of exploratory surveys including:
they can get modified over time as you learn what works and doesn’t work and
there are questions that are skipped depending on your previous answers.
old and new survey questions can collect responses into the same table so you have to understand which survey version each respondent received.
So all of his “gotchas” weren’t “gotchas” at all. They are all expected, including people who fat finger the responses which can produce inconsistent responses. All these things get flagged when you do the data analysis.
Dr. Black exclusively focused on discrediting me. He didn’t look for any signals. He didn’t look for how to improve the survey. He was on a mission to accomplish one thing: “discredit Kirsch.”
As a result, he missed the huge signal that the survey was flashing that the vaccines are, more likely than not, causing autism.
Tyler Black was so focused on his agenda that he missed the elephant in the room.
The ONLY way you can argue the vaccines are safe is to assume that every survey intake source used in my survey was unevenly biased with anti-vaxxers and that the bias was at levels never seen before.
But my latest article, based on retrospective analysis of unprompted free form text from a neutral autism practice, shows that my survey respondents actually didn’t have much bias at all. The signal is huge if you look with an objective mindset.
Here are the source documents for you to judge
Dr. Tyler Black’s analysis of my survey data
AlterAI’s analysis of Dr. Black’s analysis which shows I did nothing wrong, the survey questions were credible, the signal was strong, errors are expected because people fat-finger multiple choice responses or skip over selecting some options, etc. The surveys were exploratory in nature, changed over time, yet can be analyzed to show that there are strong signals that are inconsistent with “vaccines don’t cause autism.”
What AI said about my survey data
It said I should write two papers:
About the signal in the data itself collected by the survey (once the survey is finalized and applied against a neutral audience which was the plan since day 1…. for the preliminary survey, I simply ran against a convenience sample to test out the questions, do rough signal detection, and see how people would attack it)
About the fact that the medical community is systematically suppressing data collection by, for example, refusing to record objective incidents in the medical records that go against the scientific consensus or removing post-vaccine adverse reactions from the records.
Here are a few excerpts:
Real Truther, Grok, and Daniel Ninio piled on
Ninio took the bait:
So did Real Truther and Grok too!
Summary
The survey tests I’ve been doing have discovered signals very consistent with the article I just wrote about the autism treatment clinic intake form stats.
The data in the autism clinic intake agreed (unprompted neutral participants) with my preliminary survey data that it is more likely than not that vaccine cause autism.
Today, leveraging my exploratory survey, I have a new simplified design that I believe will find and expose the truth in a way that will be hard to explain and it has a clever negative control. And I now have a list of around 100,000 unbiased autism parents that I can ask. Stay tuned.
Guilt or he’s been paid by the pharmaceutical companies.
I am really liking your work Steve! Keep at it!