NPR proves once again, critical thinking is dead in America

A friend sent me this NPR story this morning claiming Trump counties have 3 times the COVID death rates than counties who voted for Biden and that misinformation was the cause.

Stunning. This proves critical thinking is dead in America. If you had any doubts before, you can now put those doubts aside. The NPR article is all you need.

The only thing this article “proves” is that you cannot trust what you read in NPR anymore. They are completely captured by the false narrative.

On the face of it, their claims are simply preposterous.

There are two major claims:

  1. There is a 3X death difference from COVID. We don’t even have to look at their source data to show this is impossible. We just have to read the article and think critically.

  2. They also said that the difference was due to “misinformation.” Whoa! Where is the data showing correlation? No data. Where is the Bradford-Hill analysis proving causality? None there as well (since if you don’t have the evidence it’s super-hard to prove causality).

If you analyze with best-case vaccine efficacy assumptions, you can’t get to their numbers… not even close

Let’s assume the very best case that the vaccine is 100% effective in protecting against death, fair enough? That’s a VE=1 for protection from death (not from infection).

From the chart, it looks to me like the average rate of vaccination in Biden counties is 73% and the average rate of vaccination in Trump counties is 52%. Let’s say that they are correct (I’m not saying they are correct, just basically agreeing to make my point).

Now, let’s assume the VERY best case that if you got vaccinated, that you simply cannot die from COVID.

With me so far? Great!

Now let’s do the math per 100,000.

The chart shows we had 95 deaths for people in Trump counties on average. So that would suggest that if nobody was vaccinated that the death rate would be nearly double 95/(1-.52)=198. Now, let’s look at the death rate we’d get for the 72% vaccinated. Only 28% of those people would die, so 55 deaths.

So 95 deaths for the Trump group, 55 deaths for the Biden group. 95/55 = 1.72.

That’s not 3. It’s not even close to 3.

We did the BEST possible case and we couldn’t get close to their number.

If you analyze using more “realistic” numbers, their claim is even more preposterous

Now, can we use REAL numbers? The best numbers for lives saved are always in the DB-RCT trials. We have one for Pfizer which showed that the vaccine saved a net total of 1 life for ever 22,000 fully vaccinated people. There were two placebo COVID deaths, and only one COVID death in the vaccinated group: a 50% reduction in death rate.

Let’s see how our numbers work out now with this more reasonable assumption (which again, I’m not conceding is correct).

I’m going to just round the numbers to make the math easier. 100 dead in the Trump group and a more realistic 50% effective death reduction vax. That means that we would have started with 100/.75=133 people dead with no vaccine. So if we had (optimistically) a 75% vaccination rate, then 133*.75=100 people of which only 50 would die plus the 33 who didn’t get vaxed and die. So 83 people would die. So 100/83=1.2 or a 20% better outcome for the Biden group.

Again, that’s even worse (as we knew it would be). It’s not even close to the factor of 3 claimed.

In short, you can’t make the math work here.

And then there is the confounding about the dates chosen, and the different demographics. Where is the analysis of that? It doesn’t exist. Just handwaving.

Why is NPR hiding the data?

Where is the data to be made available for people to check their work? Normally, data on a study is made available to researchers. Where is the NPR data they assembled? Not published. Why not? Because they want to make it harder for anyone to check their results, that’s why. Why else would this not be public?

Where is their analysis of the confounders? I’d like to see the data on that one.

What happens if you pick a different start date? Silent on that one.

As for ascribing this difference to “misinformation” instead of demographics, time period of the study, etc…. well that analysis is complete hand-waving with nothing to back it up.

I’m sure my followers will point out even more in the comments… this is just my first reaction.

NPR is not telling you the truth. They are promoting misinformation. When is NPR going to start being honest with us?

Finally, I’ll have a lot more respect for NPR once they run a story on how mask wearing is pure political theater. Mask wearing is completely obvious to anyone who still has a working brain. Where’s the NPR story on that one? Doesn’t exist! There are only two randomized trials on mask wearing and both of them showed masks do nothing as I’ve pointed out before (Bangladesh study and generic masks don’t work).

When is NPR going to come clean on something so completely obvious?

Answer: They aren’t going to. They’ll just avoid it.

Or perhaps the NPR staff will agree to challenge us in a debate? No way. I’d bet the farm on that one. They are afraid of being held accountable for what they write, just like the rest of the mainstream media and medical community.

I’m sure my followers will add more insights into the NPR study in the comments.

Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Steve Kirsch


This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://stevekirsch.substack.com/ and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.

USSANews.com USSANews.com USSANews.com

A better search engine: DuckDuckGo.com.
Another search engine: Bing.com.
Visit our forum at Libertati.com.
Visit our store at TeaPartyGear.com.

Follow us: