What is true, is what is true, for them ...

Posted September 06th, 2021

 

An article signed by Michelangelo Coltelli was reported to me on the BUTAC website entitled "Heather Parisi and the dead among those vaccinated against COVID-19 ..."

The article refers to my Tweet on the report of PHE Public Health England (the agency of the British Government's Health Department) in which I reported the official data referring to the period between February 1^st, 2021 and August 2^nd, 2021, in the United Kingdom United and related to deaths from Delta Variant.

The article says:

“Parisi reports the data as I have seen others do, without explaining much of what she has read, who knows where. The aim is clearly to question the validity and safety of vaccines. The numbers shown are correct.

The problem is the analysis that is made of them, or, I should say, the absolute lack of analysis."

Now, apart from the fact that a Tweet by definition does not lend itself to analysis (scientific or not) since it is a short text message, with a maximum of 280 characters (originally 140) which is characterized by simplicity and immediacy, let's try to understand what analysis is proposed by Coltelli who proclaims himself the highest authority in debunking the hoaxes.

I would have expected to come across the resume of a man of science, a virologist, a physician, an epidemiologist, a geneticist or a mathematician.

But no, I must settle for a jeweler with a degree in political science, who as a hobby has taken on the heroic mission of "unmasking false news", with a passion for statistics.

And that passion must have been the drive to give him the authority to refute my Tweet.

Fact checker has now become a real profession that does not present any risk. For fact checkers or debunkers, fake news is very easy to spot. They are the ones that do not follow the official narrative. Simple, isn't it?

But what formidable revelation does Coltelli make regarding the data I have reported and which by his own admission are true and real?

Coltelli says: “Parisi gives us the data based on the number of those who have been infected. As already explained on other occasions, the numbers that must be taken into consideration are first of all, how many vaccinated there are in the country ……. So, we have 47 million vaccinated versus 8.65 million unvaccinated.

So, we see, that out of 47 million vaccinated, 149 thousand are infected, while out of 8.65 unvaccinated people are infected more or less the same number. If vaccines were not needed, the number of infected vaccinated people would have to be five times higher to maintain the comparison with the unvaccinated.

So, we have a population of 42 million inhabitants against one of 8.65 million inhabitants, in the first we have about 0.11% of infections, in the second 1.7%. A huge difference. This is the number that Parisi should show and tell her followers. This is the data that shows how much those vaccines have helped. But also, if we want to go into the calculation of the deaths: among the vaccinated we have 0.0001% mortality, among the unvaccinated about 0.003%.

 … it's middle school level math, huh, nothing entrepreneurs like Heather Parisi and her husband can't do".

And it is here that the Don Quixote of the Buffaloes stumbles, overwhelmed by his passion for statistics and his fanaticism for vaccines.

Dear Coltelli, your consideration could be valid if the data refer to a precise date over time and remain unchanged over time, but not if they refer, as it is expressly indicated in the Briefing, to a time interval of 6 months (February 2021 - August 2021) during which the number of people vaccinated in England has changed dramatically (from very few in February to the numbers indicated in August).

Any calculation assumptions in such a situation, are approximate and are far from exact.

Forgive me, but how do you establish a percentage on a number that has continued to vary over the period examined? The statistical model you use is unacceptable.

Even if you want to close both eyes and take a leap of blind faith, you are referring to the Mortality Rate which is very different from the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) which is what my Tweet refers to and which is the only index obtainable from the Briefing, given the long period of time examined.

The data reveals that with the Delta variant in England, the CFR of people vaccinated, sick with the Delta variant, was significantly higher than the one of unvaccinated people, sick with the Delta variant. Which is exactly what I pointed out in the Tweet.

I wrote an email to the editorial staff of BUTAC and to Coltelli, pointing out the error and the response was a masterpiece of nonsense, arrogance, and prejudice.

I was literally speechless and disgusted.

I believe that if the intent of these people who play the role of custodians of the absolute truth in 21^st Century is to reassure people who have doubts, with their attitude, they end up obtaining exactly the opposite effect.

They end up instilling the doubt that behind the alleged desire to refute thesis "different" from the official ones, there is an "interested" attempt to "cover up" uncomfortable data.

The reply I received, does not even have a hint about my observation that it is not correct and possible to draw up percentages on a number of vaccinated people that have varied over six months.

On the other hand, in the answer the most obsolete technique of any debunker is used: “self-titling of the ignorant” expertly summarized in the sentence “we had however made our article read to experts who confirmed the data reported therein as correct."

As to say, "I am me and you are a nobody."

The conclusion of BUTAC's answer deserves a separate chapter.

It says:

"With unchanged esteem for your stance against the" people of the family "and the sovereignty…."

I have never been "against the people of the family".

I have defended and I defend everyone's right to have a family, which is a very different thing.

I have never even been "against sovereignty". My tweet about the sovereign dancer was never a political tweet against sovereignty.

It was a criticism of those who expressed their legitimate political ideas at a time when it was convenient to do so, in order to have a personal advantage in their professional sphere.

Dear Coltelli, it seems to me that your "meritorious" work of "unmasking false news" does not consist in refuting the news based on their reliability, but on the basis of whether or not they confirm the official version and on the basis of whomever proposes them, whether or not they are perfectly aligned with you on other issues, as well.

 

HPA