Replies

In other words, you don't pay much attention to any data that you disagree with. Here's more to chew on:

I don't agree or disagree with it, I just don't think it's very reliable.

Do you have an opinion on case reporting or CFR?

I'd love to see Dr. McCullough's paper and its citations. Do you have a link?

Here's more to chew on:

Never mind on the McCullough paper - I found out about it.

The liars based the previous number of deaths on the Lausanne study. The problem is, as the authors of the study say in the paper, that study only looked at, and therefore only counted, a small subset of all deaths of athletes under 35 - those that had been written up in medical journals.

The lying grifters, McCullough and Polykretis, don't disclose that and instead represent it as an overall average number of annual deaths.

They then compare that to a list of deaths compiled from the internet by contributers to goodsciencing.com.

This list includes deaths of people of any age - some in their 70s (versus <35 in the Lausanne study), people who had only the most peripheral connection with sports, such as sports announcers (versus competetive young athletes in the Lausanne study), and people who died from any cause, including cancer, brain aneurysms, Strep infections and unknown causes.

The dishonesty is so egregious it's clear McCullogh and Polykretis have no respect for their readers nor for the scientific method.

How does it make you feel to have these grifters assume you'll buy absolutely any lie just because it supports a narrative?

Does it give you pause to know they're knowingly so venal, or will you continue to follow them and post their lies?