2026-04-25
They obviously didn't have the same "dragon-lady" statistics lecturer that I had when at college. She had very definitive ideas about how statistical analyses should be conducted and was determined that her pupils would be instilled with exactly those principles. None of us fully measured up to her standards but we were all impressed with her ambition and were grateful for it. She gave me the confidence to examine the published Covid statistics and draw my own conclusions, however elementary. That was sufficient, may the Good Lord pass on my heartfelt thanks to her.
The MHRA did, it transpires, conduct a statistical survey, likely quite well designed (nobody's perfect), to gather data about Covid vaccine adverse reactions.
What did the MHRA analysis reveal?
Well, something and nothing, with (as always) degrees of uncertainty.
But according to Dr Clare Craig writing in the Daily Sceptic, they could have revealed more, had the necessary analyses actually been done on the dataset collected. Of course there was no need for that as the paper published was not about "the results", but about "the methodology" employed ...
So have "the results" been published at all? If not, why not?
