Summary: It’s not what the data is or isn’t, or does or doesn’t show, it’s what the official reaction to the release of the data indicates. So, yeah, it’s sparked some controversy since its release, even in vaccine sceptic circles, with some advising that it should be treated with caution and that it has limitations (missing data) which do not allow any definite conclusions about the presence (or not) of a ‘humungous’ safety signal, others stating outright that it’s a ‘nothingburger’ and Steve Kirsch claiming that a rigorous time series cohort analysis proves beyond doubt that the vaccine is ‘killing one in a thousand people’. Who to believe if, like most, you are not an expert statistician? The answer is, believe nobody and, if you can’t verify the claims and counterclaims yourself, independently, file them in a draw marked ‘unsolved’ - but don’t slam it shut.
We're overanalyzing it now and there's nothing wrong with that but we must realize the pitfalls of staring into the darkness for too long.
It's quite simple. Does the intervention benefit the patient in the long run? The answer to that has been flashing "NO" since February of 2021.
Such an intervention, given to billions of HEALTHY people, would need to kill or cripple fewer than a common vitamin C pill or one in a million. They clearly kill and cripple far more from datasets we've already had for years now. Further analysis is interesting but sort of a statistical masturbation. Maybe fun but pointless.
“The Protected Disclosures Act 2000 was replaced by the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 on 1 July 2022.
The Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 continues the 2000 Act’s purpose, which is to facilitate the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing in the workplace, and to provide protection for employees and other workers who report concerns. However, the 2022 Act makes changes to address identified issues and improvements.
The key changes in the 2022 Act are:
extending the definition of serious wrongdoing to cover private sector use of public funds and authority and to cover behaviour that is a serious risk to the health and safety of any individual
allowing people to report serious wrongdoing directly to an appropriate authority at any time, while clarifying the ability of the appropriate authority to decline or refer the disclosure
strengthening protections for disclosers by specifying what a receiver of a disclosure should do
clarifying internal procedure requirements for public sector organisations and requiring them to state how they will provide support to disclosers
clarifying the potential forms of adverse conduct disclosers may face.
Organisations, both public and private sector, have responsibilities under the Act as receivers of protected disclosures, including sometimes as appropriate authorities. Public sector organisations must have appropriate internal procedures for protected disclosures and must publicise these procedures widely.”
wow, so sorry to hear that. I love New Zealand from afar, and once even had fantasies of moving there, or at least spending a very long vacation there. Here's to millions of New Zealander's waking up! And making a sharp turn to the right!
Why would they do such a thing? "Never Attribute to Malice That Which is Adequately Explained by Stupidity..." Occam's razor?
.
You are always mentally provocative Jamie.
Another word for "anecdotal data", is evidence.
That evidence does not equal proof does not mean that it should be ignored.
Evidence can, and should be, available and used in this case, as it is in ALL criminal cases.
.
We're overanalyzing it now and there's nothing wrong with that but we must realize the pitfalls of staring into the darkness for too long.
It's quite simple. Does the intervention benefit the patient in the long run? The answer to that has been flashing "NO" since February of 2021.
Such an intervention, given to billions of HEALTHY people, would need to kill or cripple fewer than a common vitamin C pill or one in a million. They clearly kill and cripple far more from datasets we've already had for years now. Further analysis is interesting but sort of a statistical masturbation. Maybe fun but pointless.
Professor of statistics Norman Fenton has specified the data which the ONS needs to provide to settle the “safe and effective” Covid vaccine argument. Don’t hold your breath. https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-data-we-need-from-the-ons-to
His post also links to a very good article on the Bridgen 4 Dec event by Dr Pierre Kory.
Notice that NZ has not denied Kirsch or even Fenton's claims?
New Zealand has laws to protect whistleblowers, which it appears Barry Young’s employer has not followed.
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/publications/protected-disclosures-act-2022/
“The Protected Disclosures Act 2000 was replaced by the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 on 1 July 2022.
The Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 continues the 2000 Act’s purpose, which is to facilitate the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing in the workplace, and to provide protection for employees and other workers who report concerns. However, the 2022 Act makes changes to address identified issues and improvements.
The key changes in the 2022 Act are:
extending the definition of serious wrongdoing to cover private sector use of public funds and authority and to cover behaviour that is a serious risk to the health and safety of any individual
allowing people to report serious wrongdoing directly to an appropriate authority at any time, while clarifying the ability of the appropriate authority to decline or refer the disclosure
strengthening protections for disclosers by specifying what a receiver of a disclosure should do
clarifying internal procedure requirements for public sector organisations and requiring them to state how they will provide support to disclosers
clarifying the potential forms of adverse conduct disclosers may face.
Organisations, both public and private sector, have responsibilities under the Act as receivers of protected disclosures, including sometimes as appropriate authorities. Public sector organisations must have appropriate internal procedures for protected disclosures and must publicise these procedures widely.”
"The response by the NZ government is just so over the top"
This is unusual?
I don't know, but it's definitely OTT.
Pretty typical. Just hang out on NZ Twitter for a while to see where the culture comes from. The wokest of the woke.
ack! seriously? Like the California and New York "left" on steroids?
Yes. The former Labour Government was a terror and still are as opposition. The Green Party is one of the worst in the world, possibly the worst.
In saying that I'm a natural Green Party voter if they stood up for the environment which they don't in anyway whatsoever.
wow, so sorry to hear that. I love New Zealand from afar, and once even had fantasies of moving there, or at least spending a very long vacation there. Here's to millions of New Zealander's waking up! And making a sharp turn to the right!