Loathsome Unethical Academics React To The Kraken

Loathsome Unethical Academics React To The Kraken

Many will have already seen my analysis of Matt Braynard’s poll asking people in several states whether they requested an absentee ballot, and whether or not they returned that ballot. Gist: maybe 150 thousand votes, plus or minus, went missing.

I was not the first one to peer into this poll. The first was Stephen Miller, a math prof at Williams. His analysis was different than mine in small details, but his conclusion and mine were the same.

His analysis somehow found its way into the hands of his professorial colleagues. Being sober, serious people—they are academics!—you’d guess they examined Miller’s report carefully and offered collegial, behind-the-scene criticisms in their earnest and honest attempt to improve the analysis and grasp the truth.


What if I tell that instead they reacted to the news of potential cheating like teenage girls being deprived of their cellphones?

See which version more accords with the facts.

The Williams Record has the story.

Among the statement’s critics is Associate Chair of Statistics Richard De Veaux, who is also the vice president of the American Statistical Association. De Veaux described Miller’s document as “completely without merit” and “both irresponsible and unethical” as part of a longer rebuttal that also accused Miller of violating at least seven out of the 10 guidelines for ethical statisticians laid out by the American Statistical Association.

This De Veaux said Miller got the poll data from an “obviously biased source”. It is unethical and immoral to falsely accuse a colleague of unethical behavior based on an unproven assumptions, as De Veaux did—repeatedly. Loathsome slimy behavior.

De Veaux has no proof that the poll Braynard commissioned was biased. To him the mere logical possibility that the data could be biased is sufficient proof it is biased. This is like saying that because it is logical possibility De Veaux misconducts himself with horses, he therefore has, and that we should now wear gloves if we’re forced to shake hands with him.

There was and is no reason to suppose the polling firm Braynard used was any better or any worse than any other. Or does De Veaux condemn all polls on principle? Let him say so, if he does. The Braynard survey is simplicity itself, using official sources. The calls the firm made were recorded—not so usual, that!

Did any of the attacks against Miller have any merit?

De Veaux, [George] Marcus and [Charles] Stewart all pointed out that Braynard’s data is likely flawed in a number of ways, including that response rates were relatively low, that Braynard only reached out to registered Republicans and that voters often tell pollsters untrue statements on their voting history.

Sure, the response rate was “relatively low”, which does not imply “too low”, which is obvious. It is more than large enough to make the reasonable extrapolations Miller made. De Veaux should know this. Perhaps he was only pretending not to.

These self-congratulating smug-bunnies make the same consorting-with-horses error here as De Veaux made above. Yes, it’s true voters sometimes lie about voting history—though this wasn’t about voting history per se, a distinction they all missed—but it does not follow that therefore this poll’s respondents did lie, or did in such a way to bias the results in only one direction.

Their conclusion is reached by soy-drenched anemic noodle-brained reasoning. Biased reasoning.

Also: in Pennsylvania the respondents were Republicans; the other four states had voters from all parties. But that it was only Republicans in PA in no way invalidates the results. Good grief, how could it! The data still applies to Republicans who, it may well turn out, got shafted.

This isn’t the end of the story. Miller is a nice guy, new to politics. He honestly believes his colleagues only have in mind what’s best for him. He doesn’t understand that his “friends” were happy to sacrifice him to make themselves look better, and to show Miller his place.

We know this thanks to the Berkshire Eagle, which ran the misleading article “Williams prof disavows own finding of mishandled GOP ballots”.

Part of the story is a collection of quotes from other academics who might (it is logically possible) have misconducted themselves with various farm animals. Example: “Lior Pachter, a computational biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said that simple issues, such as incorrect phone numbers, could have accounted for some of the concerning patterns that Miller saw.”

Yes, they could, Pachter. Just like your silly comments could be evidence of a disturbing desire to hang out down at the morgue.

All this would, could, might, possible nonsense is not evidence. These luminaries should know better, and probably do, which makes the whole thing sad.

Because they beat Miller into submission. He apologized for a “lack of clarity and due diligence”, an apology that wasn’t necessary, because it isn’t true. Well, poor Miller will come to understand just how much charity is in the hearts of his “friends”.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. OBEY!
    Why don’t you love Big Brother?
    You will be made to love Big Brother. For your own good.

  2. Amateur Brain Surgeon

    Those who have read Trump’s most recent speech on the election fraud- an AMASING speech – understand he is headed for The Rubicon.

    He will try to go through the Courts and the Legislatures but he understands that will likely fail and so he will invoke the Insurrection Act (The Geniuses in the Congress gave the POTUS dictatorial power) and he answers to no court or legislative body when he does so.

    Is he already in a bunker somewhere so the Deep State can’t do to him what it did to JFK?

  3. Leo

    If “ the mere logical possibility that the data could be biased is sufficient proof it is biased” does it follow that the mere logical possibility that the election could be stolen is sufficient proof it was stolen?

  4. vetrani sui sunt circuli

    The fraud was comprehensive and brazen; people, paper, programs (Dominion). Exactly like tens of trillion$ in free money to the oligarchs, and the COVID fraud killing small and medium business, and the Sharia face diapers. The end of freedom of religion, the street riots and looting.
    The St George “Hooping” fraud.
    Our responses were field tested all year and were uniform; we document, we track, we file – but we do NOTHING.

    Trump will do nothing either.
    Look what he has to work with?
    Us. That is to say – nothing.

    This is the price of being Lawful.

  5. Sheri

    vetrani: This is the price of being lazy and stupid and cowardly.

    Miller’s mistake was to not negotiate the sale of his soul to Satan BEFORE going to work at a university. Now that a suitable contract has been signed, things will get much better for him. Remember, sell soul FIRST, then work for a university. If you want to keep your soul, FIND A DIFFERENT JOB.

    And idiot conservatives PAY to have their kids brainwashed by these soulless communist jerks. Many probably give to alumni associations. Conservatives are complete morons in soooo many cases and absolutely suicidal and self-loathing.

  6. On the subject of your work on the Kraken lawsuits. I’m particularly interested in the irregularities uncovered in in Sidney Powell’s new Michigan lawsuit about the vote totals in Edison County, MI. Can you enlighten us further on the specifics of this?

    Also: responses to the question “Did you return your ballot” tell us nothing useful unless we also know *when* the ballot was returned. Were all the uncounted ballots returned after the deadline?

  7. Dean Ericson

    “Miller is a nice guy, new to politics.”

    Poor kid really stepped in it. You have to be pretty naive not to know the repercussions for disobeying the party line and helping the Bad Orange Hitler. But he’s a nerd and has been swimming so long in the academic leftist sea he didn’t even notice it was wet and putrid. But now he’s getting an education. Some big leftist statistical schmuckety-schmuck at Williams, this De Veaux rat, denounced him; “…violates at least 7 out of 10 of the following guidelines for ethics.”

    Violated at least 7 out of 10! Nice going, kid. But then the statistical schmuck says:

    “After receiving this and similar feedback, on both statements, Miller apologized for his “lack of clarity and due diligence.” While this was an admirable step forward, he continually repeated his disclaimer, concluding: “the extrapolated numbers here are significant.” This amounts to statistical malpractice.”

    So it seems the kid doubled down — good for him. And now the academic leftist lickspittles will apply unrelenting malpractice on the poor fellow until he rolls over and wets himself. Sad. But that’s the price for accepting employment at one of these leftist sin-a-go-go’s.

    Smash the Academy.

  8. John B()

    Lee :: Were all the uncounted ballots returned after the deadline?

    MI had no deadline; at least not for Biden voters

  9. DAV


    Zeroing in on the important stuff, eh? Nothing slides by you. Why don’t you also ask how she managed to misspell his name?

    Isn’t attacking a statement on form instead of substance a logical fallacy?

  10. Wilma

    vetrani: You are correct. Trump is presenting glimpses of the truth for The People to see and act but he’s not going to martyr himself for an indifferent nation. Whether he’s at real risk for retribution should he lose the veil of protection being President only a few people can know for sure. But I have to believe he’s got a plan in either case.

  11. Uncle Mike

    Every week, every day, junk statistics are barfed forth by quackisticians in every academic discipline from anthropology to zoology including climate “science”, economics, psychology, public health, every “environmental science”, and on every public issue, and without exception Associate Chair of Statistics Richard De Veaux, vice president of the American Statistical Association, has kept silent as a turnip regarding those stat-bominations.

    But not now. When the opportunity arises to show his fawning obeisance to Traitor Joe Dementia, Kommie Ho Babybrainsucker, and the blatant corruption and theft of our democratic rights, “Doctor” De Veaux is suddenly a Statistical Mendicant and High Priest of Utmost Integrity thumping his bucket like a trained monkey.

    Useful Idiots are pouring out of the hollowed halls of Lock Down U to get 666 brands on their foreheads. “Do me, do me, do me next” they squeal. It’s more than pathetic, or less than, or equal to. Wee Todds Unite! Get your Beastmark today!

  12. Frank

    Not surprising at all. It takes guts to stand up to the bullies on the Left. I just hope Miller musters the fortitude to retract his apology.

  13. Frank

    Per Ove Stige, you’re comparing apples and oranges there with your little potshot at Prof. Briggs. AG Barr is not a statistician and does not set the bar (no pun intended) for what is proof of fraud. He’s a government official giving his opinion–an opinion with which many people disagree. Besides, there is no “proof” in this matter, only probability.

  14. Briggs


    It’s good all right.

    Waiting on word from lawyers and judge to post my rebuttal to these criticisms. We’ve submitted then formally, but they’re not yet public.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *