And this is the goddamnedest thing I've read in a while, certainly the most important thing in several months. A few excerpts:
and so it is also with technocratic government: the data is the debate, and it’s the part of the debate that we are losing most badly because so few pay any attention to it.
the public punditry rages around policy and “decision makers” but what informs these people? the data. and who generates that data? who knows? you never hear their names or numbers called, but they are producing the “facts” that feed and inform all else.
who decided to define covid deaths as “any death with a positive PCR test at a 40 Ct” or even a death within 30 days of such a positive test?
who decided to count as a covid case any positive test result using a monstrously over-sensitive diagnostic underpinned by a regime of mass testing of the asymptomatic never before undertaken in human history?
this did not come out of nowhere. someone made these choices and determined what the “data” was going to be for this whole affair. and that person pivoted the whole world upon the fulcrum of this seemingly small technical choice.covid has been an explosion of bad data and data suppression. i wrote the other day about the ONS seeming to suppress data every time the series go against their preferred narratives and highlighting some concerns about the nature of their data’s quality that had been raised by gatopals™ martin neil and norman fenton who have done such great work here. i spoke also about the unsatisfying explanations the ONS was putting forward regarding this curtailment.
then we get this which you’re honestly going to have to read to believe.
they have outright admitted that their widely used data is not fit for purpose and should not be used to impute vaccine efficacy.
Where are the numbers?
UK Statistics Regulator agrees with our recommendation to ignore any claims of vaccine safety based on ONS deaths by vaccination status data
On 11 November 2022 we wrote a formal letter of complaint to the Statistics Regulator about the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data on vaccine mortality. We said it was not fit for purpose: Note that we concluded by saying:Where are the numbers? is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free o…
Read more
2 days ago · 114 likes · 17 comments · Norman Fenton and Martin Neil
they were apparently concerned enough about this data to stop reporting it in may 2022, but it is only 8 months later after who knows how many people have relied upon it and its badly dated reliance upon 2011 census to generate and support policies and personal choices.the CDC has been just awful.
they are playing games with data, failed to do their job as required on monitoring adverse events, only provided data under duress of FOIA and lawsuit, and continue to play down issues and play hide the ball to this day.
were it not for folks like aaron siri and ICAN endlessly suing the CDC and trying to pry this data from them, we’d probably have never seen any of this.
CDC counts of covid cases and deaths look to be outlandishly high because they used definitions and detection modalities that never made sense. even the NYT was dunking on them. and yet it seems an article of faith that covid killed a million americans. they reported case rates without reference to sample rate and mistook a massive rise in testing for a rise in covid. the issue was so severe it inverted the slope of the case curve.
they used a narrow cherrypick of this data in kansas to claim that “masks worked” and published it knowing full well it had been invalidated already.and if you think this is bad you should see what’s going on with climate science where the data is of such low quality, so adulterated, and so deliberately misrepresented that it takes 2 weeks just to really explain to someone how to read it critically. and yet this “data” produced by a bunch of people who you have never heard of is being amplified through a zillion watt PA system to not only justify wildly aggressive and ill conceived global energy policy, but to whip up public fervor and endlessly indoctrinate all of public education.
these people have been caught cheating and hiding the data so many times as to disqualify them from ever being trusted again. the “hockey stick” used by al gore and the IPCC in AR4 was a complete fraud. the math was so bad that it created hockey stick shapes from random number strings.
and the issues go all the way to the base data.
the US temperature system run by the NOAA has one-sided warming slanted error rates that far exceed the century scale signal they seek to measure. the system as a whole almost certainly has a > 2 degrees C warming bias from bad siting near heat sources, increased urbanization, and a reduction in sampling sites in rural areas.fewer than 8% of the CRN network’s stations meet its own (already quite lax) siting guidelines. over 70% have a warming bias in excess of 2 degrees C. this signal is so tainted that there is no way to get back at any sort of truth state. you’re trying to track an alleged temperature signal in the 0.1 degree per decade range using a system with an error rate that’s likely 20-40 times that.
the NOAA has done nothing about this. they are not adjusting temps down to try to compensate. they are adjusting them up and literally going back and reducing past temperatures to make the uptrends look steeper.
because that’s good for budgets and grant grabbing.