Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
If they try to gaslight you with their data, simply respond with better data
The other side absolutely hates it when you confront them with higher quality evidence that they can't refute. They stop responding to you at that point.
When they can’t argue with your data, they will call you a racist (like thereal_truther did to my friend John Beaudoin), switch the topic to cherry picked data supporting their narrative (in this case switching from Massachusetts data to data from Sweden), or present misleading data and declare victory before waiting for the other side to reply (which Reduce Covid Now! did).
I’m going to show you a specific example of the techniques they use and how you can counter these attacks with better evidence.
The tweet that got my attention
My response and the subsequent challenge
The Devil’s Advocate analyisis
The Devil’s Advocate analysis: This excellent analysis by Martin Neil and Norman Fenton has never been attacked. It clearly shows that when you do a worldwide analysis, you find that the only explanation for the excess deaths are the vaccines. The other explanations don’t fit.
Josh Stirling’s longitudinal analysis of US data
Even more troubling is the longitudinal analysis done by Josh Stirling on a per county basis in the US. He looked at the change in mortality in counties by vaccination rate. It showed that the more you vaccinate, the higher your deaths are a year later. It’s really hard for anyone to attack.
There’s more, but you get the idea.
This US longitudinal data is very convincing.
I’ve never seen anyone dispute it or come up with something more convincing showing the opposite effect.
If you aren’t convinced, see my article on the gold standard Medicare data.
When they attack you with data, you can present them with the data here, challenge them to come up with something more definitive, and then enjoy the sounds of silence or them simply doubling down on their original statement and completely ignoring what you wrote.