Great progress in cancer 5yr survival rate for many cancers!

Ummm, Senator. They formally validated, acknowledged and added myocarditis to the vaccine labels I. June 2021. Is that how they “hid” it from the public? With publicly released discussions of the myocarditis safety data which was reported by the media, and then added to the vaccine labeling? Is that “hiding” to you, Senator?

@OkayThenNews — responding and then blocking isn’t exactly a strong look. You haven’t “proven me wrong,” Raphael. As I’ve said repeatedly, the central issue is your paper’s reliance on a fundamentally flawed structural argument: specifically a false trichotomy within an overall rough “proof by contradiction" argument. Your analysis limits the possible drivers of excess deaths to three categories: (a) COVID-19 infections, (b) lockdowns, and (c) COVID-19 vaccines. You then examine aggregated observational data (not even stratified by vaccination status) across a small number of Australian regions and argue that because (a) and (b) do not fully explain the observed excess, this suggests (c) must be involved. That inference does not follow. It overlooks numerous other plausible and well-documented contributors to excess mortality, so it does not establish vaccines as a causal factor. This was the core structural flaw I pointed out when the paper was released, and it remains one now. Below is a link to your paper so anyone can clearly see that this false trichtomy underlies the entire argument of the paper (and go ahead and run the paper through AI to see if AI reaches that conclusion). You continue to say you are not claiming “proof,” but that is inconsistent with how you present the work publicly. Your Substack posts and repeated social media commentary explicitly frame the paper as demonstrating that vaccines are a causal contributor to excess deaths, as providing "proof". While the paper itself uses more cautious language, your external messaging makes clear that you interpret it as proof and present it that way to your audience. Repeatedly. That disconnect is exactly why I keep raising this point (and, it seems, why you’ve now chosen to block me while continuing to reply to my point from behind the block so I can no longer respond). Pointing to a single cautiously worded sentence in the paper does not resolve this. Nor does invoking vague “government admissions,” which are neither clearly defined nor rigorously analyzed in the paper. As presented, they do not constitute evidence, let alone proof in the paper. This sentence certainly does not "prove me wrong" in my claim that your paper uses invalid scientific logic, and that you are framing your paper as providing "proof" of causal vaccine effects when in fact it clearly does not. Meanwhile, you continue to circulate the paper alongside strong causal claims that go well beyond what the analysis supports - and any reader of your posts or Substack would reasonably come away believing the paper provides such “proof.” At the end of the day, the argument in your paper rests on invalid inferential logic and does not demonstrate that vaccines are a causal driver of excess deaths. Repeating that claim, especially outside the paper, does not make it so.