Professor Robert Scragg tries to show the COVID vaccines are perfectly safe in order to help put Barry Young in jail
He describes himself as a "data nerd." I have a copy of his declaration. In this article, I will expose the key flaws.
Executive summary
Barry Young, the courageous New Zealand whistleblower who exposed the New Zealand record level data showing the COVID vaccine was killing people, is being criminally charged in New Zealand for his whistleblowing actions.
The prosecutor in the case enlisted Professor Scragg to do an assessment of the evidence. Scragg produced this 19 page PDF report.
ChatGPT analyzed it and eviscerated Scragg and Health NZ. I encourage you to read the analysis. It’s so awesome.
The 3 most important things:
Scragg never showed any evidence that if you have two cohorts which are mortality and frailty matched (they are not the same), where one cohort is vaxxed, the other is unvaxxed that they had a differential ACM increase during COVID waves. In plain English, Scragg never showed that the vaccines provided a mortality benefit using the raw data from matched cohorts. The RCTs didn’t establish a mortality benefit either; there were 4 sudden adult deaths (SADs) in the treatment arm vs. 0 in the placebo arm (one sided p=.11). Nobody has ever shown such a mortality differential between vaccinated and unvaccinated using raw, unadjusted data that matched during non-COVID and was unmatched during COVID). Scragg could have used the NZ record level data to show I’m wrong, but he doesn’t. So without a clear mortality benefit, and with proof from autopsies that the vaccine may have killed as many as 80% of the people who are suspected of being killed by the vaccine (as Arne Burkhardt showed), we have a very harmful medical intervention that Scragg should be warning the public not to take. Here’s the take from ChatGPT supporting that you must measure this, not adjust for it:
High-quality observational studies (e.g., Chemaitelly Qatar, Obel Denmark) show that even very aggressive 1:1 matching on demographics, comorbidities, prior infection, and healthcare utilization leaves large differences in non-COVID mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
This demonstrates that frailty and baseline mortality are not actually equalized by standard matching.
None of the major VE papers have constructed cohorts that are proven mortality-matched; they all rely on characteristics rather than measured mortality to stand in for frailty.
Scragg did NOT analyze the record level data that Young exposed because it was too big to fit in Excel. This is appalling. We have publicly available record level data that can be analyzed using a number of methods and Scragg avoids doing any data analysis of the highest quality data available (the record level data). So he claims Young doesn’t know what he’s doing, yet Scragg isn’t presenting his own “properly done” analysis of the data showing the vaccine is safe. Where is his event time-series analysis? How about characterizing the HVE effect in New Zealand and doing a CFR analysis normalized for the mortality difference between cohorts of the same age? He doesn’t need the complete dataset for that. Why didn’t he ask Health New Zealand for the obfuscated FULL data? Instead, he pretends we don’t have the data and relies on ecological and modelling studies instead. Are you kidding me?!?!? Those are useless. You need record level data if you want to know the truth. They have the data. Not using it for a criminal case should be a crime.
Health New Zealand should have analyzed the record level data because they have it. Health NZ have NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT THEIR OWN DATA. They didn’t provide it to Scragg as the centerpiece of his report. They should be publishing it for everyone to see. They KNOW it is safe to disclose the records because I proved I could publish the entire 2M record dataset Barry gave me and there hasn’t been a single identifiable record matched to the original. The reason Barry blew the whistle is precisely because nobody was looking at the data. They’ve spent millions of dollars to try to put Barry in jail, but not one red cent to analyze their own data. All they have to do is make the data public and I’ll analyze it for them. For free. Yet they do nothing. No data. No report. Nothing but stonewalling. How can they convince the court the vaccine is safe when they look the other way on their own record level data? They don’t know how to properly analyze their own data. If they were honest, they’d admit that. What is their reason for not analyzing their own data? They won’t tell us that either.
Look at what happened to baseline mortality after they rolled out the shots in New Zealand
This is weekly death data. All ages. Blue is COVID vaccine doses. Look at the troughs. They went up and stayed up post vaccine. That is not COVID. COVID doesn’t do that. We saw this mortality increase happening for 15 weeks after vaccination in Czechia, the US, Israel, and New Zealand. We have the time series to prove it. Every single Bradford Hill criteria for causality is satisfied.
The cumulative crude excess mortality shows things got worse after they rolled out the shots
The Pfizer RCT had a large mortality signal that most everyone missed
4 of the 21 deaths were sudden adult deaths in the treatment arm of the Pfizer RCT v. 0 in the placebo arm.
That is statistically unlikely. The one-sided p=.108. Had the trial been larger, this would likely have reached statistical significance (p<=.05).
In short, the “gold standard” evidence shows that the COVID vaccines are more likely than not unsafe.
The autopsy data absolutely proves the COVID vaccine kills people
Funny how Scragg missed that. In plain sight for everyone to view. You can’t have all these autopsies with the same cause of death being something they’ve never seen before.
A proper analysis of the Czech record level using KCOR shows the shot increased mortality
No doubt about it. Nobody wants to talk about it. I emailed Scragg offering to share the data and analysis tools. I doubt he will respond.
He’s paid to follow a narrative, not the evidence.
His declaration isn’t a fair and balanced assessment at all. It’s a one-sided narrative meant to try to put Young in jail.
I could go on for pages and pages…
There is so much more showing these vaccines didn’t save any lives.
For example, match vaxxed and unvaxxed on mortality and you see that ACM during COVID and non-COVID periods were the same, regardless of vaccination status. How does Scragg explain that? He doesn’t. He isn’t even aware of it.
How does Scragg explain the CMRR and time series data out of Japan? He doesn’t.
How does Scragg explain how the excess mortality took off like a rocket when the COVID shots were rolled out in Japan? If the shots worked, the excess mortality would have gone the other way.
Where is the cumulative mortality knee for longitudinal studies of those born in 1930 in the Czech record level data? Nowhere to be found. Not even a tiny bend in the ACM curve as you can see below on the left section.
Summary
Scragg is ignoring the record level data that reveals the truth and relies on modelling and ecological studies. That’s absurd.
We know from studies in Qatar and Denmark that even with the best 1:1 matching ever done in history, it’s impossible to do a fair comparison between cohorts. That’s documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
Anyone who thinks it can be done with ecological studies or modelling studies should not be considered to be credible in a court of law.
Scragg isn’t even honest enough to admit that.
There's a reason why people like Scragg overwhelmingly populate academia and it's their low threshold of integrity.
Scragg also appears to hold a PhD in Careerism, with post-doctoral studies in Mendacity. This is how "credentials" lose their luster.