As I said, I am officially retired from trying to convince people, at least outside of people I actually know in person and care enough about to devote the time. It's just too time consuming. You may be speaking from some actual rational arguments but maybe due to the way you're explaining them, I'm failing to see any convincing or logic…
As I said, I am officially retired from trying to convince people, at least outside of people I actually know in person and care enough about to devote the time. It's just too time consuming. You may be speaking from some actual rational arguments but maybe due to the way you're explaining them, I'm failing to see any convincing or logical contra-argument other than just asserting that my data and my suggested methods of analysis don't work and yours do.
At this point I've seen so much data saying the same thing, that I think the only thing that would convince me to change my mind is seeing a truckload of data - like, actual numbers, collated in a table or graph (or several dozen), from reliable sources, via people who aren't dependent on pharma or NIH for their funding (that is to say, without conflicts of interest), contradicting all of the data I've seen saying otherwise, and perhaps in a context that might give us an idea as to why all the previous data said the exact opposite if none of it is true. Not saying it's not possible, but I've not seen anyone even attempt it and I can't think why they wouldn't if we are so wrong as they claim.
I mean, people try to contradict Einstein's theory of relativity all the time, by pointing out that it doesn't explain this or it might not account for that. But nobody really listens to them because they never present a better theory that correctly predicts all the things Relativity predicts. They're just pointing out minor flaws in the best theory that currently exists to explain the phenomenon we see, without offering any alternative.
When you have a mountain of data all suggesting the same thing, the threshold for knocking down that mountain is not poking at loose rocks and then crying fraud when they fall down the side. You need a bigger mountain or you need an earthquake to make the first mountain crumble. Ideally, for a home run scientific epiphany, you need both. I've seen neither.
If you feel like collating the data that contradicts all the evidence of the vaccine being dangerous, be my guest. I'd be happy to look at your final product. But simply telling people who have studied science and statistics (not sure what exactly Steve's degree is in but any program at MIT is likely to be at least as robust in statistics and general science as mine was) that you, some anonymous person on the internet whose credentials are unknown to me, know how to do statistical analysis, and we don't, is just not going to convince me of anything.
And now you've sucked me in and I have actual things I have to do so I'm signing off.
Why are you arguing with me? I don't have a substack, I haven't written any books on the subject. All these issues are addressed in more formal sources than my comments on substack. Why don't you go read RFK's book or watch one of Chris Martenson's compelling videos (pick one - he's done hundreds) and explain to them why their data analysis is wrong. I haven't dedicated my life to analyzing the data. I'm only consuming information and I have no audience. So I don't see why you're spending so much time trying to refute me. I have better things to do than explain why your logic sounds flawed, especially when there are many educated people who have devoted their lives to collecting the data and analyzing it piece by piece with people like me who want to engage with it and understand the details but don't have time to deovte to doing all the primary research.
If you really want to invalidate the mountains of data that I'm referring to, I suggest you talk to someone who has more of an audience and I will happily read your debate with them. RFK has a website where he welcomes corrections and criticisms of his research. Steve Kirsch's substack is literally right here. I'm not a spokesperson and I don't know why you feel I'm a worthy target for your attempts to fact check. You can keep arguing if you want but I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore - I have a life.
TLDR. As I've said repeatedly, I have a life. I don't have time to get into a long debate with you. I have justified my convictions - not beliefs, as those are based in faith and I don't do faith - to people I know in real life whose minds I care to inform or change. You are not among that group and I don't have time for your long-winded arguments.
The only thing I will say, in response to your previous comment, was that the "mountains of data" refer to population statistics, the large data sets that I've seen analyzed by the people I mentioned. The "obvious" vaccine injuries were specifically references to individual episodes, which I did clearly state if you'd bothered to read it.
But I have nothing else to say as I don't have time to read your rebuttals and respond to them. I'm offended that you're making gross assumptions about my "beliefs" based on exactly zero knowledge of me, simply because I disagreed with you online. If you really care about this issue, I suggest you talk to someone with an audience so you can actually have an impact on the world. If you're just a voyeur looking to psycho-analyze someone, you're barking up the wrong tree. Good bye.
As I said, I am officially retired from trying to convince people, at least outside of people I actually know in person and care enough about to devote the time. It's just too time consuming. You may be speaking from some actual rational arguments but maybe due to the way you're explaining them, I'm failing to see any convincing or logical contra-argument other than just asserting that my data and my suggested methods of analysis don't work and yours do.
At this point I've seen so much data saying the same thing, that I think the only thing that would convince me to change my mind is seeing a truckload of data - like, actual numbers, collated in a table or graph (or several dozen), from reliable sources, via people who aren't dependent on pharma or NIH for their funding (that is to say, without conflicts of interest), contradicting all of the data I've seen saying otherwise, and perhaps in a context that might give us an idea as to why all the previous data said the exact opposite if none of it is true. Not saying it's not possible, but I've not seen anyone even attempt it and I can't think why they wouldn't if we are so wrong as they claim.
I mean, people try to contradict Einstein's theory of relativity all the time, by pointing out that it doesn't explain this or it might not account for that. But nobody really listens to them because they never present a better theory that correctly predicts all the things Relativity predicts. They're just pointing out minor flaws in the best theory that currently exists to explain the phenomenon we see, without offering any alternative.
When you have a mountain of data all suggesting the same thing, the threshold for knocking down that mountain is not poking at loose rocks and then crying fraud when they fall down the side. You need a bigger mountain or you need an earthquake to make the first mountain crumble. Ideally, for a home run scientific epiphany, you need both. I've seen neither.
If you feel like collating the data that contradicts all the evidence of the vaccine being dangerous, be my guest. I'd be happy to look at your final product. But simply telling people who have studied science and statistics (not sure what exactly Steve's degree is in but any program at MIT is likely to be at least as robust in statistics and general science as mine was) that you, some anonymous person on the internet whose credentials are unknown to me, know how to do statistical analysis, and we don't, is just not going to convince me of anything.
And now you've sucked me in and I have actual things I have to do so I'm signing off.
Why are you arguing with me? I don't have a substack, I haven't written any books on the subject. All these issues are addressed in more formal sources than my comments on substack. Why don't you go read RFK's book or watch one of Chris Martenson's compelling videos (pick one - he's done hundreds) and explain to them why their data analysis is wrong. I haven't dedicated my life to analyzing the data. I'm only consuming information and I have no audience. So I don't see why you're spending so much time trying to refute me. I have better things to do than explain why your logic sounds flawed, especially when there are many educated people who have devoted their lives to collecting the data and analyzing it piece by piece with people like me who want to engage with it and understand the details but don't have time to deovte to doing all the primary research.
If you really want to invalidate the mountains of data that I'm referring to, I suggest you talk to someone who has more of an audience and I will happily read your debate with them. RFK has a website where he welcomes corrections and criticisms of his research. Steve Kirsch's substack is literally right here. I'm not a spokesperson and I don't know why you feel I'm a worthy target for your attempts to fact check. You can keep arguing if you want but I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore - I have a life.
TLDR. As I've said repeatedly, I have a life. I don't have time to get into a long debate with you. I have justified my convictions - not beliefs, as those are based in faith and I don't do faith - to people I know in real life whose minds I care to inform or change. You are not among that group and I don't have time for your long-winded arguments.
The only thing I will say, in response to your previous comment, was that the "mountains of data" refer to population statistics, the large data sets that I've seen analyzed by the people I mentioned. The "obvious" vaccine injuries were specifically references to individual episodes, which I did clearly state if you'd bothered to read it.
But I have nothing else to say as I don't have time to read your rebuttals and respond to them. I'm offended that you're making gross assumptions about my "beliefs" based on exactly zero knowledge of me, simply because I disagreed with you online. If you really care about this issue, I suggest you talk to someone with an audience so you can actually have an impact on the world. If you're just a voyeur looking to psycho-analyze someone, you're barking up the wrong tree. Good bye.