I hate to even call it statistics. There isn't any real data to analyze. They just made up a scenario where "IF* certain things were true, and other things never happened, THEN there would be a certain result. The only real numbers are known like population and the rest might as well be magic.This is a combination of both "dazzling with [fictitious] data" and "baffling with bullshit." It works because not only is math hard but the caveats take work to figure out.

Edit: to clarify, it was the original model that was BS. The Lancet article points out all the ways that it went wrong, and the best part of the article is bringing in the all-cause deaths, imo, because that not only brings attention to the side effects of the vaccines, but ought to bring about a more reasonable way of evaluating vaccines in general, their benefit to harm ratio.

I hate to even call it statistics. There isn't any real data to analyze. They just made up a scenario where "IF* certain things were true, and other things never happened, THEN there would be a certain result. The only real numbers are known like population and the rest might as well be magic.This is a combination of both "dazzling with [fictitious] data" and "baffling with bullshit." It works because not only is math hard but the caveats take work to figure out.