Responses; Claims Don’t Prove You Right

*Breathes in* Ahhh… We’re back here again. This is a response to the response made by the commenter to my response to the commenter about COVID-19 vaccines. I hope that makes sense to you. So I won’t double up with some things that are talked about last time unless I have to. So if you haven’t read the first piece in the series, I suggest that you do.


1. I’d like you to show me where I said it was okay when media takes things out of context.

You didn’t need to show it. You accepted it by using their numbers without question of the context.

Not Quite Right

2. I didn’t present your comment out of context, I referred to and posted the screenshot including the exact context it was in. Here it is again (1).

You did. You failed to acknowledge what I do generally and I said that in my piece. The context is that what I do is present mainstream facts to prove what I am saying. What you’re trying to do is say that my numbers are out of context and paint me as the one who is incorrect. So, yes, it is taking me out of context for me to say that these numbers alone prove the ineffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Mitchell Man Bad

3. You are still just reiterating that you were “pointing out a fact”, yes a fact that is irrelevant as it is again, out of context of proportions.

It’s not irrelevant to point out a fact as I explained. And this is a typic answer. There’s no rebuttal of why I do something, just ‘Mitchell man bad’. I explained why the proportions given are wrong and you can read all of this in my previous blog post. So, let me say, what the commenter is saying is “irrelevant”.

Claims Are Not Evidence

4. It is not a straw man, it was an example to communicate the flawed point you were making by only looking at case numbers without taking into account the total numbers of each party. I have already explained this and don’t need to explain it again, please see the article as well.

Once again, this point means absolutely nothing. It proves zero and is entirely a claim. I literally answered why the proportions were wrong and that was the main part of the blog post and not defending why I used the raw numbers. Yet, the commenter is still here talking about this.

If someone argues with you and provides no evidence, it’s a good sign that they probably don’t have any. All I’m saying is that you can’t just say ‘you’re wrong’. You have to show how and I did.

Sample Size Is Not The Issue

5. Sample size is a basic concept in the scientific method. We also learnt this at the beginning of high school. The smaller the size, the less trustworthy the results, even if the conditions are the same. In any similar scenario you could zoom into any part of a larger average where that specific time period happens to better fit your narrative. It’s like if you’re speeding the whole way along the highway then slowed down for the speed camera, then the reviewer of the data from that one camera concluded you were going that speed the whole way. This is just to highlight the concept of sample size and not a direct comparison to your data before you start. Also, in this 6 day period you shared, it again fails to show these numbers as proportions of the total of each party, instead of as the total of everyone together, so it is again, out of context.

My issue never has been the sample size, it has to do with what the sample is. Sure, “The smaller the size, the less trustworthy the results” but that is not my point. My point that the samples are not even in their characteristics and not their amount.

I don’t understand the relevance of the highway example. It really makes no sense whatsoever.

It really doesn’t matter that picture that I showed, see below, wasn’t as a percentage of cases but instead of the total category. Why? Because it does not matter. I’ve established in the last episode the issue of testing bias. Also, as I said, it makes little sense to have to many people sick if the vaccine works.

I Was Wrong But Wait

6. “The “100,000” people is only referring case numbers”. It is not. If you bothered to actually read the article. It says right here above the chart I was referring to that the data is presented as “a proportion of EVERY vaccinated and unvaccinated person IN THE STATE”(2), and not out of case numbers, so that entire part of your argument is simply wrong, including the part about skewed data, and the part about proportions of case numbers. Yes it is true that unvaccinated people are more likely to be tested only when they are positive after a severe reaction but it is irrelevant in this data.

Is what I wrote wrong? No because I also quoted from the article and what did it say, “Showing deaths and ICU admissions as a percentage of Covid cases”. What I was wrong about was which section it applied to. This quote only applied to a graph which broke down “serious outcomes” by age group and vaccination status.

Now, I’m not sure if the commenter realises this but quoting “the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people who have died, or ended up in ICU, is shown as a proportion of the total number of people in the state” doesn’t help their argument. It’s flawed to do this by population and not by cases because it makes no sense. In addition, I don’t see how they got their population statistics and I don’t believe their unvaccinated population is correct based on my own calculations. There’s no point looking at the population as a whole because you have to actually look where the disease is.

It’s like the wage gap myth, if I looked at men and women and looked at how much their earned as an average or median. You see women earning less. Does that mean that there is sexism? No. Why is there a difference? Because women tend to work in lower paid jobs or work less hours. To do a fair comparison you have to compare within jobs and specific roles.

The same works for the vaccine. If you had a high concentration of serious COVID-19 cases amongst the vaccinated or unvaccinated, things are going to look very different depending upon which group the cases are in. And it’s all got to do with the fact that one group is larger and so using percentage of the population is always going to make the bigger population look better. That’s why looking at cases and then who gets more sick is helpful but that analysis needs to be fair.

So, it’s not helpful to look at the population as a whole because it makes no sense to lump those with the disease and those without it in order to determine how many people have serious sickness from COVID-19. It’s also not helpful to look at case numbers generally for a proportion, as I said last time. Things have to be done on a one-to-one basis in order to see how two similar people deal with the same disease with the only difference being the jab.

Population Is Not Good For Proportions

7. Again, the data is about proportion of total people in the state from each party and not case numbers. You are referring to a completely different chart lower down in the article that I was obviously not talking about. So yes, when I was talking about the testing bias, the numbers were in context and not ‘raw’ as they are again, out of the total of each party in the state (in the chart I was referring to, not the one you just decided to change the focus to).

Yes, I just addressed my mistake. Which numbers is the commenter referring to being raw? I can’t glean much from this because I simply know too little. But if I understand correctly that the commenter is saying that the serious events are in context because they are proportions of the population, then this they are wrong because of what I explained about how using the population is an inaccurate measurement.

Testing Bias Is Real

8. Referring to the part about the testing bias going against you: I did say here “even if we were talking about raw case numbers” (not proportions of health issues out of cases, you again just decided that that was what I said). Additionally, YOU ALSO were in fact NOT talking about proportions in the original post I was referring to and were in fact talking about “how many get Covid 19” as you can see here in the screenshot (1) (full context included), therefore my point still stands and is still relevant, as I said “there are more cases of unvaccinated in reality than what the data shows”.

No, I didn’t ignore the “even if we were talking about raw case numbers” comment and juts talk about proportions. I wrote about it quite clearly headlined by, “Now, I really am struggling to follow this point about testing bias and how it apparently goes against me.” I acknowledged the fact about raw numbers and said it was irrelevant.

I understand that I misunderstood what the proportions were of in relation to the first graphic but nothing changed in what I said because the graph is still on the same topic. Saying that I misunderstood one thing that still applies to something else doesn’t change what I said.

Now, yes, there are more cases than we know of and the fact that their point stands is not something that was caused by my mistake; so the “therefore” is just wrong. I clearly acknowledged that fact as correct when I said, “it’s another own goal to infer that there are more cases of COVID-19 that go untested. All it does is prove the point that COVID-19 is not severe to most people and unworthy of intention.”

An Own Goal Is An Own Goal

9. Yes you are right and it is not an own goal. Covid is not severe to ‘most people’, but there is a significant percentage of those that do have severe reactions including death, significant enough to warrant the vaccine. Considering the data from the article indicated a 25x less incident and death rate for vaccinated people, Imagine how many of those unvaccinated ‘statistics’ you are arguing over would be alive today if they had been vaccinated. (again data is in the article).

If I’m right, then it is an own goal as I said. You can’t have it both ways. You also can’t have it both ways to suggest “Covid is not severe to ‘most people’” but then say, “there is a significant percentage of those that do have severe reactions including death”. It’s not most people have COVID-19 mild if it’s a significant percentage which have it seriously.

If we’re going to go on what people didn’t say, I never said that we shouldn’t have vaccines. I’m saying we should have these vaccines which are currently on offer. In fact, there’s a whole series I did on the issue last year. I’m not anti-vaccine and never have been but what I am against are bad vaccines.

I see the rate they used and I’ve debunked it. Saying it again doesn’t justify it.

Also, using the emotive argument is useless about unvaccinated people dying. You don’t argue with emotions but with facts. I really see no logic even if I grant this argument because you can see that double and triple jabbed people still die with COVID-19. That itself, as I’ve said, inspires no confidence in the vaccine. Now it brings up the whole issue of with and from which people tend to ignore but it actually proves an easy out as I pointed out in the last piece.

More Claims

10. I know you don’t agree with the conclusions of the article, that’s pretty obvious, I’m just pointing out how ironic it is that you took the numbers from the article out of context when the article itself explained their context and why those same numbers when put into context actually prove the opposite of what you are saying.

Once again, this is another claim. There’s no evidence here as to how I’m wrong but just saying it seems to make it true to the commenter. In addition, I’ve already addressed the issues about correct context, so this really is a redundant statement.

Mass Formation Psychosis Live In Action

11. Most of the rest of your article is you continuing to miss my point about boosters and the fact that we all know the vaccine isn’t watertight unlike others such as tetanus but it still saves lives and that’s why it exists. You continue to miss the point that yes, people can die from the virus with the vaccine but A LOT less do (25x less) (again see the article), are you saying that 25x more of the severe vaccinated cases should’ve not taken the vaccine and died or ended up in ICU because the vaccine doesn’t save every single person? You miss this point over and over again.

I don’t get it. You’re telling me the vaccine is a failure yet still promoting it. Don’t tell me this isn’t mass formation psychosis. And I know why the vaccine exists and it’s not for saving lives; let’s just leave it at that.

Once again, more claims and no evidence. And yes, I am suggesting that if we see the majority of people in hospital for COVID-19 and have been jabbed, that’s a pretty good reason to not take a vaccine. That’s especially true when you look and the hundreds of people dying after having the vaccine and thousands more experiencing non-fatal adverse events.

Claimed Rationality Is Overrated

12. “Oh and it’s the height of irony to imply that the writer is a “rational person” because that is what a person who is experiencing mass formation psychosis would say.” This point is comical, “you’re saying you didn’t murder him, that’s what someone who murdered them would say, you’re guilty!”. That’s not a straw man that’s an exact parallel.

Um… What? I never said that just because you claim to be rational you are psychotic. What I said was that you can say that and still be psychotic. All I’m saying is it’s moot point because everyone can say it and it doesn’t mean it’s true.

I think I know what the commenter is referring to by the “That’s not a straw man that’s an exact parallel.” sentence. But it’s lower down the list than where it appears in the blog post. I explained how talking only in raw numbers and claiming that I believe everything should be based on that, in responding to the example the commenter gave, is a strawman. Why? Because, as I explained, that’s not my argument and so to say that is irrelevant. Therefore, the example the commenter gave is a not a good parallel.

Beans… What Have Beans Got To Do With This?

It seems I did prove you in every way wrong in that comment as {Name removed of another person in the group} and {Name removed of another person in the group} agree or at least mostly agree. And it seems I have done so again.

Hmmm… No, you haven’t. You have made several authoritative claims without evidence. Now, that generally persuades some people, even smart people because strong unchallenged claims are difficult to ignore. But once you actually go through what is written, you’ll see that what’s written is a bunch of rubbish. Anyone can do write claims and look smart on any topic if they’re unchallenged.

Let’s give an example of a ridiculous claim and how anyone can be convinced if you write strongly enough. Beans are the best vegetable. They are green and everyone loves beans. Beans are crunchy with a delicious crispy taste. They can be eaten raw or cooked. They are a stable of many dishes and are often given as a side. They are fantastic source of fibre, Vitamin C and folate. Therefore, everyone must be mandated to eat at least 20 per day and only eat beans.

As you can see, the argument seems pretty strong until you challenge the fact there are many types of beans and that there are many nutrients that green beans cannot provide. There are other points but the idea is that you can write something and it seem really good but in reality, it’s not.

Bringing in the names of people who seem to agree with the commenter’s viewpoint is irrelevant to the discussion. Sure, I really don’t see why they’d believe this nonsense and that’s why I questioned them and they are yet to respond to me. But just because these people seem to agree it doesn’t mean they’re going to when I actually scrutinise what written. That’s why I asked them to let me know what they actually think but they haven’t.

Who’s The Big Toddler?

Stop having a tantrum at the fact that they do see rationality in what I wrote, they are individuals and not your minions/blind followers.

I’m not “having a tantrum”. What I’m doing is asking why these particular people who are generally on my side seem to agree with absolute rubbish. What is written by the commenter is not rational. I’ve explained myself unlike the commenter. I’ve done my own research and presented it. All the commenter says is to look at the numbers but then ignores the numbers when they disagree with their view. I don’t ignore the numbers but give reasons for why they are right or wrong.

Yes, these people are not my minions or followers which is why I am asking questions. They wouldn’t agree with you are a moment if they were my followers.

Cowardice Is Key

I’m done arguing. You should link this comment after this most recent article of yours and post it in its entirety for your 3 readers on your WordPress before you attempt to slander it in your next article.

Okay. You’re done arguing but did you ever serious start? Like I said most of what is written is so easily debunkable. Actually, you should go through what I wrote and answer it point by point. But no, you’ve ignored things like the testing bias that I addressed because it still applies and needs to be addressed. Instead you’ve just posted claims.

3 readers? Hahahahahahaha. I mean does size even matter but I don’t have 3 readers. Since August 2021, when I began, I’ve had 873 visitors with views of 1,501 with an average of at least 1 view per day for each month and a maximum of 21 views per day in one month.

Also, you were being very condescending in this article Mitchell, perhaps you should be dealt with with a 12 hour ban? Lastly, I’m aware you didn’t here but stop trying to compare this to the holocaust, no excuses, you have done so before many times, it’s disgusting.

Nothing says condescending like saying, “Not to be condescending” but I rest my case. No, I don’t deserve a “12 hour ban” because they don’t exist; suspensions do exist and I am not worthy of that as I’ve explained.

Okay. Segregation and apartheid, the group with you were a part of and now left (a key fact here and so this may be the end of this little response series) addresses the fact that both those occurred in Nazi Germany and other places. So, if that’s comparing things to the Holocaust then sure, I stand by that 100%. But I am not doing that because genocide of the COVID-19 vaccinated is not occurring. Though, ironically, genocide of the vaccinated, may be happening.

So no, I won’t make excuse for what I’ve done because I stand by it 100%. If segregation, apartheid and forced medical procedures were wrong in the Holocaust then they are wrong now.

This sort of ‘gotcha moment’ fails because guess what? I stand by what I said. And just because you want to frame it some way, it doesn’t mean what I said what wrong. All I have to do is dismiss the connotations of genocide that you infer I am referring to. Why don’t you go back and read what I write, specifically this piece?

As I’ve said, it’s not disgusting to say things about the Holocaust and compare what happened to what is happening now. The Holocaust is not some untouchable event that you can’t talk about unless you’re saying it was bad.

This idea that you’re inferring happened is that one day Hitler turned up and everyone gassed the Jews. It’s just not true and devoid of the history that occurred. You have to understand the demonisation of Jews, pressuring of non-Nazis to vote for Hitler and a population primed for an authoritarian leader to use mass formation on its population all lead to why people complied with the Nazis and the Holocaust.

So yes, we should look at the parallel cases happening here and warn what is occurring and what could occur. History doesn’t repeat exactly but similar events occur over and over again. Just because you live in a democratic society doesn’t mean atrocities can’t occur.

Remember Hitler came to power through a democratic system; he didn’t walk into Rome like Mussolini. So don’t think that authoritarianism always comes in violently and/or suddenly because it could just as easily like it is now.

A frog can not realise that it’s slowly boiling alive because it happen slowly but it may also work it out as I am doing now. The point is, don’t ignore small steps of authoritarianism like mass propaganda by the government just because they are small.

What is disgusting is refusing to discuss this further but I guess that because once you’ve pointed out my one error, you know there is nothing of substance left to what you write anymore.


Oh well, it looks like this chapter is a close. If do you agree with the commenter in theory and can articulate his ideas in a proper way (I really don’t see how to steelman them) and want to debate this, feel free get in contact. If you agree with me, please share this to show how my 3 readers are really passionate about me.

Sources (In order of use)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s