Dr. Laxton's criticisms are not "gaslighting." He made valid points about the limitations of your research. Your rejoinders only work as a rationale for the deficiency of your methodology, not a support for the strength of your conclusions. That is not important to anyone. Soft data does not firm up because you bit off more than you coul…
Dr. Laxton's criticisms are not "gaslighting." He made valid points about the limitations of your research. Your rejoinders only work as a rationale for the deficiency of your methodology, not a support for the strength of your conclusions. That is not important to anyone. Soft data does not firm up because you bit off more than you could chew. If you aren't able to assess relevant confounding factors, you can't make educated guesses about possible causation. If you aren't doing a sampling comparison of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated, your correlations are shaky.
There's this popular misconception that statistical studies that provide correlative values and confidence intervals of 95% must be authoritative, because Numbers. Because Big Data Sets. I've reviewed too many overgeneralized data comparisons that more closely resemble guided meditations intended to induce hypnotic suggestion. Your study isn't quite that bad, but you are overselling it. And accusing your critics of "gaslighting" simply because they've identified the limitations of your database comparisons is a bad look.
To sum up: no, your claim of increased mortality in the vaccinated is not "vindicated." It's a murky insinuation to begin with. It doesn't even offer much of a starting point for further researches.
Dr. Laxton's criticisms are not "gaslighting." He made valid points about the limitations of your research. Your rejoinders only work as a rationale for the deficiency of your methodology, not a support for the strength of your conclusions. That is not important to anyone. Soft data does not firm up because you bit off more than you could chew. If you aren't able to assess relevant confounding factors, you can't make educated guesses about possible causation. If you aren't doing a sampling comparison of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated, your correlations are shaky.
There's this popular misconception that statistical studies that provide correlative values and confidence intervals of 95% must be authoritative, because Numbers. Because Big Data Sets. I've reviewed too many overgeneralized data comparisons that more closely resemble guided meditations intended to induce hypnotic suggestion. Your study isn't quite that bad, but you are overselling it. And accusing your critics of "gaslighting" simply because they've identified the limitations of your database comparisons is a bad look.
To sum up: no, your claim of increased mortality in the vaccinated is not "vindicated." It's a murky insinuation to begin with. It doesn't even offer much of a starting point for further researches.