Recently a person claiming to represent 'Covid Science' did a sleight-of-hand hack job on my Cancer tracking chart that I derive from CDC data.
We take you through that parade of deception & incompetence in 5 panels, after exemplifying how this work is professionally done below.
The 1st sleight-of-hand he used involves decrementing UCoD depressed cancer deaths from the totals.
He failed to us the Wonder Database to double-check and see if the lowered Cancer death rates were real, or merely an Underlying Cause of Death effect (i.e. Died 'with' Covid).
His 2nd sleight-of-hand involved obscuring the clear MMWR Week 14 inflection, the stark increase in cancer deaths thereafter, & then denying that it has occurred at all.
Yet there it is on his chart - my very point.
Obtuse? Malicious? Both when you claim to be 'Covid Science'.
The 3rd sleight-of-hand used is to appeal to provision. Here he cherry picks a relevant date range which best frames the picture he wants to paint, rather than 'to date'. He is 'debunking'.
One can read how debunking (fake science) works in this article:
The 4th sleight-of-hand used - he pretended that 1 million early-death older citizens, would in no way lower the cancer death base rate in 2022 (not that one needs that count to make the argument).
Despite my explaining this (& all these 5 points) to him several times via email.
And finally the pièce de résistance - he truncates the 32 recent weeks of cancer rise & pretends they don't exist (because they abjectly falsify his narrative).
Then he employs the CDC 23 K record redaction to create a false ¡downturn! in cancer death rate at the 'end' (week 6)
Folks, that is a five step journey into how an academic, who just recently set out on a club-incentivized debunking foray - reveals both a lack of comprehension and background in the data, along with the desire for a quick victory, and magician's rush of crowd deception/approval.
Below, I leave you with the Cancer entropy chart, and several other charts this gentleman does not know how to do - that also dramatically back up my inference to date (I have not made a final conclusion just yet)....
Thank you,
TES
If you would like to read my article, where I outlay every data source, every step, and every, calculation - that can be found below.
We have long held that the standard code features a degenerative symmetry. However, once we discover that what we have misinterpreted as degeneracy is actually a highly sophisticated symmetry, elegantly aligned with amino acid nucleon count—merely part of an advanced and concatenated symmetry that existed prior to evolution itself—the playing field changes monumentally and irrevocably. This is no longer an accident.
ChatGPT-4o almost gets it right, but it is close enough in plain English summary. This is below the Bridgman Point, but it gets most of the principle across:
"For a long time, scientists believed that the genetic code had a certain "degenerative symmetry," meaning that different DNA sequences (codons) could result in the same amino acid by what seemed like a random, redundant process. However, new findings suggest that this isn't just random or redundant at all. Instead, there's a highly sophisticated and precise pattern where the number of nucleons (protons and neutrons) in amino acids is perfectly aligned with the structure of the genetic code. This intricate pattern seems so advanced that it suggests a level of design that existed before the process of evolution even began. This discovery challenges the idea that this pattern could have happened by accident, fundamentally changing how we understand the origins of life.
This pattern is not just a coincidence; it's a deliberate and complex symmetry that was likely built into life from the very start."
Neither theist nor nihilist atheist will be happy with this observation however. As they are both wrong.
Take note, this code is not about evolution, as it instead concerns abiogenesis. Nor did it occur inside any domain of evolution. This is the standard code, a prerequisite upon which our DNA is based. So it could not have evolved, as there was no such thing as 'evolution' when it was formed.
However, the creator of this standard code was subject to the laws of the universe, just as are we. A very lesser god, as it were - using the tools of chemistry and distributed ledger warfare to conquer the cosmos.
It is amazing how many legal professionals lack critical language and deductive skills - and completely missed the precedent set by this case. This was not a case-specific ruling.
Justice Alito concurs in his dissent:
“What the officials did in this case was more subtle than [ham-handed censorship] ...Officials who read today’s decision ...will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this court should send.”
And the "enough sophistication" bar is very very low in this instance. As we had three parties with clear sets of communication to intend harm to specific parties. Avoiding this litmus is achievable by even the most obtuse of Party Member in the future.
And here is the kicker:
If this case is re-filed so that a clear chain of standing (not simply 'standing' alone) is established, that IS case specific. A victory for the Plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri no longer serves to dispel the precedent the Court set here.
Even lawyers involved in the case itself did not comprehend the ethical question being answered here.
We are in trouble.
What the unskilled case presentation has done, is akin to 'overselling' in marketing parlance - by having your first product hyped too much and too far ahead of its skis, thereafter under-delivering, a company creates negative goodwill inside their brand.
This is why we have FaceBook and not MySpace.
The second mouse to the trap gets the cheese. But if the first mouse held the locus of human rights, and self-immolates, we have f---ked up for everyone involved.
This is why a strategy is essential in a critical path of prosecution. Not simply a bundle of correct legal principles.
A white crow or dead body observation forces us to introduce a novel paradigm. Thereafter, does that novel paradigm bear elegance, along with greater explanatory and probative power than did the old one.
Skepticism does not mean 'never undertake the risk of proposing a hypothesis'.
The whole mission of ethical skepticism is to dispel this Mind Trick that skepticism is 'doubting everything' (until you are just a Narrative Sponge). Because they never teach you to doubt the Narrative, only new ideas.
I was silent in the vehicle on the way back to the hotel in Cairo. My stomach hung like lead. My colleagues with me on that second trip to Giza nudged: "TES, you OK? You're awfully quiet."
Once seen, this cannot be unseen.
And perhaps this is the culmination of decades of Officer of the Deck and Captain seamanship, along with having headed a materials research corporation
...nonetheless, it was staring us in the face all this time.
It helps to actually read my hypothesis before commenting...