[fr_freak]

I’m sorry, but this is too small of a sample size to make any relevant conclusions. Kirsch should know better.

Huh? Sample size is irrelevant here. What matters is what killed them. If what killed them is unusual, then that is of interest.

For example, let's say you have just ONE Canadian doctor die from his head exploding. Naturally, there would be interest in what made his head explode, regardless of the fact that it only happened to one guy. However, if at least one doctor's head has exploded every year since we started tracking doctor deaths, then I suppose it wouldn't be a big deal.

[CatHerd]

One died after a year-long battle with lung cancer. Another was diagnosed with an aggressive form of stomach cancer last August. One died after an undisclosed illness.

[Boogieman]

“Sample size is irrelevant here. What matters is what killed them.”

But the conclusion that something unusual is going on at all is based on the calculation of an unusual increase in the death rate, and that calculation is invalid because it’s done with improper methodology.

Now if you want to go and find the autopsy reports and find out what killed them, they you have a different route to say something unusual is going on, but that’s not the route Kirsch is trying to take.