Tale of the pesky professors

Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are aged, like us, but their themes are eternal and one of those themes is the "expert" who has not been bought. In short, he/she's a bit eccentric, a bit nutty, but also seemingly incorruptible ... he/she's an awkward morsel the political body cannot bear, so it tries to eject, vilify, mock.

Such is the case with Prof H at the Covid Whitewash, showing up the charlatanism of the undeserving woman in charge of the inquiry, whose (allegedly) corrupted conclusions we could write even now.  

Here he is and his colleague:

On August 25th, the ONS published on ‘Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between April 1st 2021 and May 31st 2023‘ and an Excel datasheet.

Then, on October 20th, an Adjournment Debate on the Trends in Excess Deaths occurred. It was attended by Andrew Bridgen MP, a handful of other parliamentarians and the Westminster cat called Mog. Ostensibly, the debate was about the role (if any) of Covid vaccines and excess deaths.

On October 24th, in response to the debate, the U.K.’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) released a document called ‘Trends in Excess Deaths and Covid-19 Vaccines‘.

Read on.

There are those of the Sceptical Brigade of the first water ... they're experts at noticing, smelling rats, analysing and furthermore ... getting the results out ... finally being eccentric enough to be impervious to criticism, whilst still noting the substance, if any, of those criticisms.

In short ... these are dangerous people to monolithic bodies full of ambitious, easily bought and easily manipulated people, such as the woman running the covid inquiry (allegedly). The First Water of Sceptic is thorough, he/she analyses in much the same way as Drs H and J.

The Second Water is those of us who might possibly learn to analyse in the manner of Drs H and J but who lack the time ... or even the sharpness any more due to age and slowing brain. 

For example, she may be in full time work, he might be getting on a bit now and running several blogs, which involve collating and coordinating.

And then there is the skill of "persistence", the bit between the teeth thing, the crusader mentality ... that's a critical factor, plus "openmindedness" of a very real kind ... a truly scientific mind which will consider all data, plus the pesky data which does not fit the hypothesis sends him back to the drawing board to rethink ... rather than just discard, shelve or ignore.

The overwhelming problem for the First and Second Waters is that it's slow, laborious work, annoyingly obscure to those of the Third Water and below, who are far more used to half to one page summaries or short vlogs, whose attention span will not allow him/her to Press On Regardless.

These Third Waterers are, imho, most important for (true) progress ... for a start, there are far, far more of them, they're far more incognito, they're willing to learn and apply the precepts, maybe imperfectly but improving over time. 

Such people are gold to Second Waterers because they will carry on when the First Waterers are made examples of and the Second Waterers themselves are less spectacularly suppressed.

And so it goes, down to the Ninth and Tenth Waterers, by which time fatal errors are present in the method, e.g. a priori suppositions, plus laziness in sourcing.  Which is not to say that they're worthless ... many a fine snippet is stated by a Tenth Waterer, which Second and Third Waterers note and file away for future retrieval.

But oh, the whole process is slow and laborious. As pollies and covid inquiry grandstanders know full well ... the average normie has neither the patience nor analytical ability to persevere, to expunge his/her own minor errors and start over, plus there is "confirmation bias" to contend with. Plus the desire to have the neatly packaged conclusion presented on a platter ... uncritically.

The good Drs H and J can patiently lay out the case, making subtle points here and there ... but how many of us have either the time or patience to see it right through to the bitter end? 

However, some can summarise the situation well, such as this commenter below the article:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Recall we also had the weird practice of discounting the first 14 days post jab, I believe classifying those in this window as unjabbed, although the exact specifics escape me (I’ve read way too much to be able to find it again easily)

ONS aka “Obscuring Nefarious Shenanigans”