I’ve run out of sarcasm.
Well, not quite. I just don’t have enough of it to properly cope with the astonishing things ‘official’ bodies are saying.
We’ve had Public Heath Scotland (PHS) recently announce they are going to stop publishing data showing the covid outcomes for the Goo’ed and unGoo’ed. The CDC also seem to have admitted they are sitting on a pile of Goo-related data they won’t release.
In both cases there are two main reasons, but those reasons are intertwined. They can be summarized as
The raw data needs careful technical analysis before any conclusions are drawn
The data can be used to promote misinformation
The first bullet point is absolutely true. The full data set needs to be examined so that the technical process of accounting for any bias can be performed. PHS actually go further by stating that their ‘in-house’ estimation of vaccine efficacy also requires some modelling to be employed.
One can only hope they are not out-sourcing this process to people who might have surnames like Ferguson.
OK - so it’s true that it might require some degree of expertise to properly analyse the data. All fine with that. However, take note of the implication that is drawn. By not releasing the full dataset (and the PHS data was only a limited dataset anyway, but still better than the data publicly available in some countries and jurisdictions) they are really saying:
We don’t trust anyone else, except us, to come to the correct conclusion from the data
Furthermore, they are also implicitly saying
We get it right. Our methodology and calculations don’t need to be open to independent scrutiny
Imagine trying to publish a study where you don’t give the methodology used, you don’t give the data you collected, and you don’t give the calculations and models employed to reach your final conclusion. All you do is to state that conclusion.
Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Yet this is what we are expected to go along with when it comes to official studies of the Goo.
I can’t even begin to wrap my head around this. Not only is the degree of sheer arrogance on display truly breath-taking, but the lack of anything approaching a scientific principle here is staggering.
I have several gallons of sarcasm stored in my spare room, in case of emergency, but it’s not enough. And I’ve not even quite finished with the first bullet point yet.
What they are doing is so far beyond the bounds of scientific acceptability I don’t have the words to describe it. I can’t afford to buy any more sarc and my pithy comments have runneth out of pith. They have taken the pith.
You see, one of the pillars of science is that you subject your work to scrutiny. It’s important. You need to give enough detail of what you’ve done so that a competent researcher can reproduce your experiment or your calculation, or both.
I don’t even know why I have to explain this, it’s that fundamental to the process of science. The notion of scrutinizing the work of others is the absolute bedrock of the scientific method. Without it there is no science - only belief.
This, this, is what it’s all about. They simply want you to believe them.
But now we come to the REAL reason. The second bullet point.
These official bodies are worried that releasing the full data will allow people to come to the wrong conclusion and cast doubt on the ejaculate of efficacy, the semen of safety, the great and glorious Goo itself.
They’re worried that we might mistake it for something it’s not - like the infamous hair gel scene in There’s Something About Mary
They don’t want the data to be used to disrupt the lovely smooth official narrative hairstyle and make it stick up in all sorts of awkward directions.
This can mean one and only one thing:
The raw data now looks very bad for the Goo
It needs to be processed, manipulated, and sanitized before letting the misinformed grubby hands of the public anywhere near it. You’d have to be some sort of colossal cretin to think that if the raw data was showing a good picture for the Goo they would be withholding it. Indeed, when the raw data did seem to be working in the Goo’s favour they were only too happy to publish it - and without any mention of biases and confounders and models and the like.
They dress it up with what to some (but not me) sounds like it might be a reasonable concern - a naïve analysis would come to the wrong conclusion and lead to some jolly misleading anti-Goo tweets and the like. But make no mistake about it, they are afraid of what the data really shows.
How I wish we could go back to those halcyon days of innocence when we didn’t think the best way to progress science was to hide data for 75 years.
Way back in undergrad, I did research in synthetic organic chemistry, and one of the steps that my research prof had me do in a synthesis of a compound we were going after was this synthetic reaction invented by this French prof, a Fellow of their National Academy of Sciences. Well, after 2 1/2 months of trying it and an insane number of variations on it, I finally walked into my prof's office and said "this reaction doesn't work..." and he got all pissed off and he said "I'll show you how to do it so it works..." and two weeks later, no dice. I'd incidentally been talking with a friend at Cornell who was dealing with the same reaction, except he'd blown two years on it. So my prof talked with his prof, and the two of them tracked down the big French prof, who was very evasive about things... and we learned that Fifi had eaten the lab notebooks, so to speak. Actually, the reaction was a fraud, it had never worked for anyone. That paper got retracted, although since it was in print, probably other people wasted a lot of their time on that, too.
The moral of the story is that if you can't see the data, whatever bit of research which claims to be backed up by the (missing) data is just absolute fraud, and whoever perpetrated it should be kicked out of doing science, forever...
I get the sense this was written backwards, so that Goo meant something more significant at the end. You're right, there's no sarcasm or pith worthy of lessening what they seek to pull off by hiding the data. One may be incredulous that they think they can pull it off. The reality is that they're trying to land a crashing plane without significant loss of political life, or by losing the momentum that has been started in enslaving the world beneath mandates that they couldn't force upon enough people to hide the sad truth that is yet to come in which more people die of the vaccine than died of the virus.
Look! Over there! prepared "studies" that show a high incidence of heart failures among young men! Especially since there was no pattern of this before the vaccines. But that's not the reason why these kids are dying. Wait until more autopsies are conducted. More whistleblowers are exposed. And more people grow a conscience and reveal the heinous depths to which this ran. And the mad scramble to save each other from prosecution while more and more data is collected that shows how truly malevolent the plan really was.
And THEN, hopefully the burning of the wicked commences, through trials, being exposed, or being taken out because of the threat of exposing even more malevolent people.
No, there is no room for sarcasm or pith. Only sorrow and soberness. And the hope that the truth will continue to leak out faster than they can come up with a plan B or C, because they continue to double down on the pressure and legal methods by which they can kickstart the plan again at the merest whiff of opportunity.